Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
2. That simply doesn't hold water; it's bunk and explicitly refuted by the evidence found.
Tue Sep 13, 2016, 05:17 PM
Sep 2016

Abstract from
Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research
A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents

Linked in OP


Early warning signals of the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of sugar (sucrose) emerged in the 1950s. We examined Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) internal documents, historical reports, and statements relevant to early debates about the dietary causes of CHD and assembled findings chronologically into a narrative case study.

The SRF sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor.

The SRF set the review’s objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts.

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.

Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry–funded studies and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development.


The academic environment today is even worse. The academic literature is chock full of industry sponsored, narrowly framed research that is DELIBERATELY designed to produce results which can be distorted. While there is internal validity to the work of these academics; all to often, like the work here, the external validity of the effort is sabotaged by design.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

At the time, researchers all over the country were noticing a generational increase Warpy Sep 2016 #1
That simply doesn't hold water; it's bunk and explicitly refuted by the evidence found. kristopher Sep 2016 #2
You're assuming one grant covered all research everywhere Warpy Sep 2016 #3
Write your opinion to Dr. Kearns, she is the one refuting your claim kristopher Sep 2016 #4
A more balanced perspective than the hype of today's "press." HuckleB Sep 2016 #5
That just tries to gloss over the corruption in academic research. kristopher Sep 2016 #6
No, it doesn't. HuckleB Sep 2016 #7
It's amazing how those who shout "science" loudest always go straight to personal attacks. kristopher Sep 2016 #8
Mr. Pot? Have you met Mr. Kettle? OKIsItJustMe Sep 2016 #9
Walking around muttering to yourself again? kristopher Sep 2016 #10
Muttering to myself, eh? OKIsItJustMe Sep 2016 #11
And we're still waiting kristopher Sep 2016 #12
This message was self-deleted by its author HuckleB Sep 2016 #13
Awww. That's cute. HuckleB Sep 2016 #14
Really?? kristopher Sep 2016 #15
The press, sir, is reporting on a peer-reviewed study. JackRiddler Oct 2016 #19
And the press did not give the full story. HuckleB Nov 2016 #20
That's some fantasy you have there. JackRiddler Nov 2016 #21
So when no fat started weight started going up. That is very telling! ScienceIsGood Sep 2016 #16
The glycemic index; the glycemic load kristopher Oct 2016 #17
Thanks for the great info. n/t ScienceIsGood Oct 2016 #18
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience»Study: Sugar Industry Sec...»Reply #2