Hacker News Reader

Comment by dekhn | Hacker News Reader

Duno about the downvotes, but in short the first link says "may" in the title and the abstract concludes with this pointless statement "Thus, the increase in consumption of HFCS has a temporal relation to the epidemic of obesity, and the overconsumption of HFCS in calorically sweetened beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity." which tells me as a scientist nothing.

The second article isn't very helpful either.

We are looking for high quality data that meets the criteria required to make nutritional advice:

1) almost certainly needs to be a controlled clinical trial with double blinding 2) needs to be replicated by multiple indepdendent groups who do not share data or methods or design before publishing 3) after that, get a Cochrane REview and ideally also allow Glantz and others to pick apart the methodology.

View on HN

From my second link:

In the absence of definitive evidence, recommendations must rely on professional judgment. No data suggest that sugar intake per se is advantageous, and some data suggest it may be detrimental. The studies above, taken in total, indicate that high sugar intake should be avoided. Sugar has no nutritional value other than to provide calories. To improve the overall nutrient density of the diet and to help reduce the intake of excess calories, individuals should be sure foods high in added sugar are not displacing foods with essential nutrients or increasing calorie intake.

Can you point me to something substantial that suggests I should not consider the above accurate? I appreciate that evidence in support of the Lustig claims may not be complete, but evidence against them seems non existent. Why should I ignore what seems obvious?

Sure. Let's remember that Lustig's goal is to actually ban substances which he says are causing MASSIVE HARM to people.

First, the conclusion that it's detriment is admitted by the authors as being uncertain "some data suggest it may".

Second, most people in the area would say that in the absence of data showing harm, one should not conclude something is harmful, and then take action.

Third, let's turn their argument around. They state: "in the absence of evidence, use professional judgment. If something has no use, it should be avoided." OK. If that's their professional judgement, then to be fair it should apply to everything in their demesne, right? AKA, if there is somethign which is not absolutely necessary, and might be detrimental, these authors would say to avoid it entirely.

However, sugar makes food more palatable. So there are patients who don't want to eat food (cancer patients on chemo) but if the food is more palatable they eat it. Even sometimes getting kids to eat food is hard- shall I not add salt, or sugar if it gets them to eat a meal? Taken to its logical conclusion, their suggestion would shut down nearly all free choices that we make which have marginal risk concerns.

AKA, if there is somethign which is not absolutely necessary, and might be detrimental, these authors would say to avoid it entirely.

That seems to be a bit of a strawman based on an exaggeration of the quoted passage in the parent comment.

I don't agree at all. That's what the authors say, quite directly!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com