/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11035974
because americans are retarded. liberal media, republican media. its like they will both disagree for the fuck of it. if one side supports dumb vegan life the other will make some retarded shit up like only meat diet just to oppose it.
and im just here just eating to survive. i cannot give less of a fuck.

>>11035974
Because commercial interests, so much disinformation out here. People who try to publish the truth get shut down by big corp goons.

>Yudkin ended the first Chapter: "I hope that when you have read this book I shall have convinced you that sugar is really dangerous." This message was extremely unwelcome to the sugar industry and manufacturers of processed foods and these firms employed a number of methods to impede Yudkin's work. The final Chapter of Pure, White and Deadly lists several examples of attempts to interfere with the funding of his research and to prevent its publication. It also refers to the rancorous language and personal smears used by Ancel Keys to dismiss the evidence that sugar was the true culprit.

>Keys wrote, for example:

>"It is clear that Yudkin has no theoretical basis or experimental evidence to support his claim for a major influence of dietary sucrose in the etiology of CHD; his claim that men who have CHD are excessive sugar eaters is nowhere confirmed but is disproved by many studies superior in methodology and/or magnitude to his own; and his "evidence" from population statistics and time trends will not bear up under the most elementary critical examination. But the propaganda keeps on reverberating..."[35] "Unfortunately, Yudkin's views appeal to some commercial interests with the result that this discredited propaganda is periodically rebroadcast to the general public of many countries."[36]

>The efforts to discredit the case against sugar were largely successful, and by the time of Yudkin's death in 1995 his warnings were, for the most part, no longer being taken seriously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yudkin

>>11035974
Researchers are paid to find preselected results. Somebody oughta make a rule.

It didn't really change. In particular, this new study didn't bring to light anything that wasn't already known. The risk reduction is there, it is statistically highly significant, and shows up in hundreds of studies. This new paper just goes .. well, the effect is there, but it's not THAT big of a deal, so keep eating whatever you're eating; and also ignoring the effect it has on nation-wide health care finances, and the environment.

News outlets choose to report what and how based on maximal sales effect, but also that is hardly news.

>>11035974
It doesn't, but sensationalist journalism creates that impression. This is true for many scientific fields.

>>11035974
Nutrition "science" is unironically the fakest science out there. like it makes lysenkoism look reasonable. the food pyramid literally changes every generation???

Because what you see isn't consensus but just the 2σ result from the latest paper which looked at 60 people. The media presented it as truth every time, which is probably a part of the reason, burgers don't believe in science.

>>11035980
>jews do something
>phenomenon is worldwide, wherever there are jews
The Americans did this.

Curruption or/and scientists just mashing statistics to create an article so that they aren't fired cause of their incompetence.
American media just pics it up and says that because it's scientific it must be right. They don't even discuss the sample used for these studies.

>>11035974
Nobody has posted the right answer yet. The truth is that nutrition is too complex to have a simple answer to. The goal of science is to reduce everything to its simplest, most basic parts, but that isn't possible with nutrition(at least not yet). We don't understand all of the chemicals within our food and how they interact within our body. If any of you had even the smallest amount of knowledge in medicine you would know that there are so many unanswered questions to our physiology. Nutrition is a part of our physiology. Michael Pollan has a good essay on this topic called Unhappy Meals.

>>11035974
Unlike other fields, it's easier for people to disprove their bullshit since they have access to the foods.
So they have to always move around the goalposts once the placeboniggers are forced to tone it down.

>>11035999
This. Nobody would consume news if they told you the same story again and again.

>>11035974
>vegans not so tough now that meat is not so bad

>>11035974
Basically this >>11036156
Gut microbiome? Genetic polymorphism? Immunity? Epigenetics? Neurophysiology of the gut?
All these fields are at baby stage when it comes to nutrition.
How do you observe digestion in vivo too? You currently can't.

In the far future we will probably be able to tailor an optimal type of diet based on your DNA, your last shit, your urine and your blood stats but there's probably one more century of research before it happens.

Currently the goal in gastro enterology is to understand and treat inflammatory diseases and other things like IBS, by the time it's done we will already understand a lot more about digestion.

>>11035974
maybe because it is politicised?

>>11035974
>Why does the scientific consensus on nutrition change so frequently?

amazing isn't it, and yet people still listen to them. they can't even make up their minds.

>>11035974
Because it is poorly controlled for correlative nonsense.

>>11035989
>Yudkin’s failure to incorporate possible confounding factors in his case-control designs was an area of heavy criticism at the time; apart from other unmeasured known risk factors that might affect cardiovascular disease (CVD), data had emerged soon after, suggesting that sugar intake was associated with smoking, a big risk factor for CVD.
You can be right but if your methodology is flawed, be prepared to be called out. That's how science should work.

>>11035974

>The telegram

Sight... alright, when are going to ditch all the "journalists" and "media" into a nuclear waste facility and fill it with concrete and put people that actually know what they are actually talking about into the news?

>>11035974
because you should eat bugs

>>11035974
https://blog.ucsusa.org/sarah-reinhardt/new-studies-on-red-and-processed-meat-are-a-big-fat-nothingburger

Because of how scientists get funded, coordinate and reported upon.

Because the farty bum wank wank is just too mcuh

>>11035974
Food study is dominated by shills.

>>11035974
Because it's pseudoscience and it's typical for pseudoscience to either refuse any modification of existing "truth" or completely change all the time. (usually with the basic premises unchanged)
>>11035989
Sugar is not an industry, sugar is something manufactured on the side, usually with a minor loss or barely breaking even. It isn't a profitable business that could finance anything like that. I would be more inclined to believe sugar was created as a scapegoat to cover the real issue, which may in fact be known by the food industry, which obviously likes that people eat more.

>>11035974
Because nutrition depends on a lot of factors including forbidden subject la racial differences.

nutrition is complicated

>>11036935
>sugar isn't an industry
they're obviously talking about sugary products, not actual bags of fucking sugar you autist

>>11035974
Don't confuse the findings of single studies/small groups of scientists as a consensus

>>11035974
It doesn’t. News websites are just retarded and take the results of single studies as broad consensus changes

>>11036935
who are coka cola, Nestle and kraft?

Well, well, well... so it comes out that the lead researcher has ties to the meat industry

every. fucking. time.

>tl;dr red meat is still bad for ya

>>11036970
Aren't the people meant to decide that?

>>11035974
>Why does the scientific consensus on nutrition change so frequently?

>The Telegram
>Mother Jones

Pick a reliable source and stick with it, not some tabloid buzzfeed trash. I unironically recommend the WHO.

As other anons have mentioned corporate interests generate disinformation which changes every other week. Coffee is bad/good happens on the regular.

Nutrition is a pseudoscience desu, no one individual has the same DNA. No one tribe of humans ate the same food stuff. There is no magic diet which is perfect for all humans. RDA's on vitamins were done by the FDA way back and we still measure all calories the same based on a technique which uses a bomb calorimeter.

>>11037694
>Nutrition is a pseudoscience

>>11036935
You genuinely have no clue what you're talking about. Firstly, sugar isn't just something you mine out of the ground like salt or whatever dumb idea you have about how sugar is made, it's a multi-step process to grow the crops, process them, process the sugar, move it without damaging it, then put it into everything in America. Secondly, you're a fucking moron if you think there's no money in sugar. Even if the government didn't subsidize it (initially done because of worries about famine and shortages; tl;dr how do we makes sure Americans are getting enough calories? Incentivize putting sugar in EVERYTHING), the fact that it's put in absolutely everything in America means it's incredibly profitable.

And finally, you're simply wrong on why this entire ordeal came about. The entire reason for the creation of a sugar oligopoly was to stop famine and ensure Americans wouldn't starve. However, after that clearly was no longer a problem, there was no reason for this state created oligopoly to remain. As long as no one said anything, no one would remove it from power (Congress is incredibly lazy). If, however, word got out that sugar was causing health problems (it actually doesn't, what causes health problems is obesity as it turns out, but sugar in everything contributes to American obesity, which is the entire crux of basically any "is X bad for you?" debate as the answer is no, being obese because you eat too much X is however), then it could create a moral panic and cause Congress to actually do something. To that end, a huge disinformation campaign was funded, and still is funded mind you, in order to keep the subsidies going.

>processed meat

I would still practice caution on this one simply because obesity alone by itself is a detriment.

Also,

www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/well/eat/scientist-who-discredited-meat-guidelines-didnt-report-past-food-industry-ties.amp.html

>>11036966
>>11037340
They could not care less if you drink coke zero or coca cola.
>>11037732
There is nothing to be made or adding/not adding sugar to foods. If americans didn't want sweet bread, they would sell regular bread like in Europe.

>>11036966
>>11037340
They could not care less if you drink coke zero or coca cola.
>>11037732
There is nothing to be made on adding/not adding sugar to foods. If americans didn't want sweet bread, they would sell regular bread like in Europe.

>>11037732
explain he fructose problem to me

Cause food science is literally fake news garbage studies like psychology. Based Feynman knew whats up.

>>11035974
It’s unethical to do meaningful manipulative experiments, so we have to rely on observational studies. This introduces many confounding variables

1. eat lots of vegetables
2. Drink mostly water
3. Avoid processed and refined foods
4 get a good amount of protein
That’s literally it. Everything else is redundant

>>11035974
NO GOYIM, THE SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED. YOU SHOULD CONSUME WHAT I TELL YOU TO DO, SCIENCE EVOLVES!

YES GOYIM, THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED! DO NOT CONSUME FOSSIL FUELS! THE SCIENCE ON THIS WILL NEVER CHANGE.

>>11035974

It depends on what spending/shilling the food lobbies are doing. During the 90's, the sugar people waged a huge campaign against fat to throw the scent off themselves; I can remember growing up during the 90s and hearing fat bad this, fat-bad that. Not that this was ever a major personal concern, but then in health/bio classes in middle/HS I read the basic stuff to the effect that fat and lipids are important for such-and-such, and you need those, but not too much (like everything else).

>>11036156
Good read thanks for suggestion

So far there's nothing to fear about eating bugs.

>>11038372
don't forget the fat balance, so don't eat shit meat

>>11038353
Fructose can apparently cause copper deficiency when you are already marginally deficient. There is no fructose problem. HFCS is close to natural sugars that occur in fruit or honey and tastes sweeter than the regular corn syrup which is mostly glucose,

>>11039037
Diseases like non-alcoholic fatty liver disease are almost certainly a copper deficiency problem. i suppose the problem could be completely avoided if fructose was mandatorily supplemented with defined amounts of absorbable copper.

>>11035974
>Scientific Consensus
This is code for Oligopoly Consensus. Scientists which vote for consensus work for the top ten largest corporations in the world.
A climate scientist, for instance, is really just a “corporate lobbyist,” with a different name.

>>11036095
>>11036136
>>11036156
>>11036439
Those are the correct ones

>>11039280
>>11036136
If it could be said there was a consensus in diet in any way, it was that 'red meat is bad'. That was/is the standard advice given by every government on the planet.
Same was true with the war on fat and the war on salt.

Oh, want to have your mind blown? Smoking during pregnancy probably doesn't have any of the serious long term issues for the child either. All the data was confounded by the fact that the stupid people who can't stop themselves smoking during pregnancy have stupid children.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4194213/