Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Nov-22-17, 02:46
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 21,759
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 215/170/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 82%
Location: UK
Default Sugar industry ‘halted research after heart link’

Quote:
From The Times
London, UK
22 November, 2017

Sugar industry ‘halted research after heart link’

The sugar industry shut down research that appeared to show a link between sucrose intake and heart disease 50 years before the current debate on the safety of sweet foods and fizzy drinks, scientists have claimed.

Researchers accused sugar trade bodies of using tactics similar to those of tobacco companies by “suppressing” science showing their product was unhealthy, after finding internal documents describing the study.

The documents showed that the Sugar Research Foundation, an industry-funded US research organisation, initially backed a University of Birmingham study into the effects of sucrose intake on rodents.

However, early results appeared to find evidence of an association with heart disease, above and beyond the calorific content of the sugar. They also identified a potential mechanism for this, in the form of interactions with gut microbes. At that point the foundation — which is linked to the current organisation, the Sugar Association — stopped the funding. It claimed the work had “nil” value.

Cristin Kearns, of the University of California, San Francisco, wrote about the findings in the journal Plos Biology. She said they showed “the sugar industry spent considerable money to understand the health effects of sucrose — and were only interested in publishing results that exonerated sucrose”.

Her co-author, Stanton Glantz, is a researcher who helped show that tobacco companies knew before the public that nicotine was addictive and that smoking caused cancer. He said the latest findings implied that sugar companies should not be trusted in scientific debates about sugar.

Several studies have found that sugar is linked to heart disease even if people are not overweight — but these results have been challenged by the industry.

“They’re out there questioning the science and presenting themselves as a legitimate participant in debates,” Professor Glantz said. “They are still taking the position this is all hokum, that there is no evidence linking sugar consumption and heart disease.

“What they are doing here isn’t science, it’s advocacy. The companies continue to demand a seat at the table for scientific discussions, presenting themselves as experts. What this early history shows is they are very expert.

They understood the emerging science, and were doing their best to derail it.
“It’s the whole game they play, tobacco companies play, anti-global warming people play. Their behaviour here is prima facie evidence about why they shouldn’t be taken seriously.”

The Sugar Association denied that interpretation. In a statement, it called Kearns and Glantz’s paper “a collection of speculations and assumptions about events that happened nearly five decades ago, conducted by a group of researchers and funded by individuals and organisations that are known critics of the sugar industry.”

The organisation claimed the funding was cut because the research was delayed and over budget. “Throughout its history, the Sugar Association has embraced scientific research and innovation in an attempt to learn as much as possible about sugar, diet and health.”


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...-link-ch3bhd2bq
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Nov-22-17, 06:37
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,552
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Article on same study in Business Insider Australia:
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...17-11?r=US&IR=T

And NPR in the US:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...t-didnt-tell-us

What The Industry Knew About Sugar's Health Effects, But Didn't Tell Us



and In the same area of tainted research, also in the UK press, Dr Aseem Malhotra's hard-hitting article in The Guardian.

Finance trumps patients at every level – UK healthcare needs an inquiry

The healthcare system faces a crisis of trust; ill-informed doctors and poor research are harming patients

Links within article on tainted research, how too much medicine can kill you, and other reasons more people distrust their doctors and media stories on health advice.

https://www.theguardian.com/healthc...-needs-inquiry?

Last edited by JEY100 : Wed, Nov-22-17 at 06:51.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Nov-22-17, 09:14
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is offline
Posts: 5,947
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/208/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 101%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default Controversial sugar industry study on cancer uncovered

Here is another similar story from CNN on MSN:

Quote:
An old study is now shedding new light on the sugar industry's controversial past, and its secrets are being revealed in a new paper.

The 1960s study, which suggests a link between a high-sugar diet and high blood cholesterol levels and cancer in rats, was sponsored by the sugar industry, according to the perspective paper published in the journal PLOS Biology on Tuesday.


Yet the study itself was never published and has been forgotten until now.

"All we know is that the plug got pulled and nothing got published," said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and a co-author of the new paper.

"Whether the investigator didn't bother to try or whether he tried and failed, we don't know. Or whether there was some kind of clause in his agreement with the sugar people that precluded him from publishing, we don't know," he said. ... (more in the link below)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/hea...Kz&ocid=DELLDHP

Who would have thought that it was the sweet ole sugar industry playing the role of puppet master that led us to our current worldwide health crisis. Where would we be today if Yudkin's ideas instead of Keys had won the day?

Last edited by khrussva : Wed, Nov-22-17 at 12:13.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Nov-22-17, 12:07
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,552
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

MedPage linked a version of the CNN article about this study in this morning's email....for doctors and other healthcare workers to read and digest.

"A secret 1960s industry study of sugar has been uncovered. It found a link between high sugar diet, high cholesterol and cancer in rats. (CNN)" http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/21/healt...tudy/index.html
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Tue, Nov-28-17, 04:21
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,552
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

The Daily Beast interviews the two authors of this new report, more insight on the history of the study.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/resea...stry-conspiracy

DietDoctor posted a few other versions of this story...it continues to be covered in various media. https://www.dietdoctor.com/big-suga...er-50-years-ago
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Tue, Nov-28-17, 08:42
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,452
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Clearly the sugar industry just wants to know the truth about sugar's effects on health. You people should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Fifteen percent sugar sounds enormous to a low-carber. Even somebody eating high carb should take pause. A "normal" intake of carbohydrate is probably 40 or 50 percent of the diet. Call it 50 percent carbs, 15 protein, 35 fat. That makes 30 percent of the carbohydrate intake free of the micronutrients most natural carbohydrate sources come with. This is my big problem with whey protein as well, when I wasn't limiting my protein intake, whey might have been okay, now I want my protein to come with all the micronutrition it can. Add the failure of microbiota-provided nutrition from sugar vs. starch. Throw in reduced nutrient content of processed starches, with only some of the nutrients added back in.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Tue, Nov-28-17, 11:06
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,930
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
Fifteen percent sugar sounds enormous to a low-carber. Even somebody eating high carb should take pause. A "normal" intake of carbohydrate is probably 40 or 50 percent of the diet. Call it 50 percent carbs, 15 protein, 35 fat. That makes 30 percent of the carbohydrate intake free of the micronutrients most natural carbohydrate sources come with. This is my big problem with whey protein as well, when I wasn't limiting my protein intake, whey might have been okay, now I want my protein to come with all the micronutrition it can. Add the failure of microbiota-provided nutrition from sugar vs. starch. Throw in reduced nutrient content of processed starches, with only some of the nutrients added back in.

Very well stated. Even "healthy" processed foods like proteins cannot provide the nutritional profile whole or "real" foods provide. Nutrient density is very important, as vegetables and animal fat and protein sources have a far better micronutrient profile than processed protein or vegetable matter. Unprocessed whole foods on the carb side, not so much, but better and more balanced with minerals and micronutrients than most anything processed and/or manufactured.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Wed, Nov-29-17, 21:16
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 10,005
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

I see it the same way I see artificial fertilizers. We can’t put in what we don’t know is mssing.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:14.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.