Must Read on Pocket

This is one of the most-saved, read, and shared stories on Pocket.

Recommendations from Pocket Users

Nir Eyal

Shared April 20, 2016

"...findings contradicted every national and international dietary recommendation, they must be flawed. The circular logic is symptomatic of a field with an unusually high propensity for ignoring evidence that does not fit its conventional wisdom."

Manoush Zomorodi

Shared April 19, 2016

Trying so hard to have less of this stuff in my life!

David Hale

Shared April 13, 2016

This was really eye opening, and a good reminder that it's important to know what you don't know...

Leland Maschmeyer

Shared April 21, 2016

Great read on the bad science of nutrition and why sugar is worse for you than fat.

Jeshua Borges

Shared April 14, 2016

In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not fat – was the greatest danger to our health. But his findings were ridiculed and his reputation ruined. How did the world’s top nutrition scientists get it so wrong for so long?

Matteo Wyllyamz

Shared April 9, 2016

While humans have always been carnivorous, carbohydrates only became a major component of their diet 10,000 years ago, with the advent of mass agriculture. Sugar – a pure carbohydrate, with all fibre and nutrition stripped out – has been part of western diets for just 300 years; in evolutionary terms, it is as if we have, just this second, taken our first dose of it. Saturated fats, by contrast, are so intimately bound up with our evolution that they are abundantly present in breast milk.

david mcqueen

Shared April 10, 2016

3. Continued insights into how sugar is promoted #sundayreads

Michael Overell

Shared April 10, 2016

the nutritional 'establishment' - as political as any movement; but devastatingly wrong for decades

Niket Desai

Shared April 8, 2016

If you think politicians are worst than scientists you are wrong. Humans act quite similarly across disciplines. Here, it's about nutrition and sugar.

Rochus Wolff

Shared April 19, 2016

Ein Stück über Ernährungswissenschaft und Wissenschaftstheorie. Und unser Essen.

Mohsen Suliman

Shared April 29, 2016

A very long, yet, full of astonishing facts article! I used to avoid white sugar, now I am avoiding and hating it.

Mauricio Balvanera

Shared April 10, 2016

We tend to think of heretics as contrarians, individuals with a compulsion to flout conventional wisdom. But sometimes a heretic is simply a mainstream thinker who stays facing the same way while everyone around him turns 180 degrees. When, in 1957, John Yudkin first floated his hypothesis that sugar was a hazard to public health, it was taken seriously, as was its proponent. By the time Yudkin retired, 14 years later, both theory and author had been marginalised and derided. Only now is Yudkin’s work being returned, posthumously, to the scientific mainstream.

Rodrigo Guaiquil

Shared January 7, 2017

the food that correlated most closely with deaths from heart disease was not saturated fat, but sugar.

Yufeng G

Shared April 12, 2016

In the past, we only had two sources of nutritional authority: our doctor and government officials. It was a system that worked well as long as the doctors and officials were informed by good science. But what happens if that cannot be relied on?

Brad Brooks

Shared May 5, 2016

After reading Lustig and Yudkin's books, I've completely cut out all sugar and have been on a low carb diet for the last three months or so. I've gone down five trouser sizes and have reversed my nascent type 2 diabetes. It's frankly horrifying how much hidden sugar there is in food. Read this article and start being better informed.

Mats Staugaard

Shared July 7, 2016

Nina Teicholz

Akhil Unnikrishnan

Shared April 26, 2016

When I asked Lustig why he was the first researcher in years to focus on the dangers of sugar, he answered: “John Yudkin. They took him down so severely – so severely – that nobody wanted to attempt it on their own.”

Armand S

Shared April 9, 2016

Seems that eating how we have eaten most of human history is probably the best way.

Rohit Chatterjee

Shared May 2, 2017

Relevant

Stas Kulesh

Shared April 13, 2016

A little bit more about sugar, the new killer on the block.

Arkadiy Kukarkin

Shared July 24, 2017

A scientist is part of what the Polish philosopher of science Ludwik Fleck called a “thought collective”: a group of people exchanging ideas in a mutually comprehensible idiom. The group, suggested Fleck, inevitably develops a mind of its own, as the individuals in it converge on a way of communicating, thinking and feeling.

Maxime Souillat

Shared April 13, 2016

Passionnante plongée dans l'univers très fermé des nutritionnistes. Ca intéressera ceux qui s'intéressent à la santé, à la science, aux mécaniques d'influence...

Si vous avez une bonne demi-heure devant vous et que vous lisez l'anglais, ça mérite le détour.

Max Orgeldinger

Shared April 23, 2016

If, as seems increasingly likely, the nutritional advice on which we have relied for 40 years was profoundly flawed, this is not a mistake that can be laid at the door of corporate ogres. Nor can it be passed off as innocuous scientific error. What happened to John Yudkin belies that interpretation. It suggests instead that this is something the scientists did to themselves – and, consequently, to us.

Max Orgeldinger

Shared April 23, 2016

Both really scary and oddly reassuring how scientific progress so closely mimics traditional irrational human behavior.

This makes scientific inquiry prone to the eternal rules of human social life: deference to the charismatic, herding towards majority opinion, punishment for deviance, and intense discomfort with admitting to error. Of course, such tendencies are precisely what the scientific method was invented to correct for, and over the long run, it does a good job of it. In the long run, however, we’re all dead, quite possibly sooner than we would be if we hadn’t been following a diet based on poor advice.

Kate Huyett

Shared May 6, 2016

If only a small fraction of what we know about the effects of sugar were to be revealed in relation to any other material used as a food additive,” wrote Yudkin, “that material would promptly be banned

Jay P.

Shared August 13, 2016

This will change your perception about nutrition and heart disease.

Jessica Tran

Shared April 7, 2016

Great piece on the rise and fall of fat + diet wars.

Jules Holleboom

Shared May 18, 2018

This makes scientific inquiry prone to the eternal rules of human social life: deference to the charismatic, herding towards majority opinion, punishment for deviance, and intense discomfort with admitting to error.

Alexandra Florea

Shared May 11, 2016

This could very well be the story of one of the greatest scientific fuck ups of the past 40 years!

Shreeniwas Iyer

Shared April 10, 2016

Wow, the Sugar Hypothesis was known since 1972 and yet a few scientists could play with science and affect millions through wrong advice.. Sad.

Saket Kulkarni

Shared June 4, 2016

Fascinating read.

Justin Roth

Shared April 30, 2016

Pretty damn damning. I will now go eat a five-egg omelette.

Mike Devine

Shared July 13, 2016

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Mike Devine

Shared July 13, 2016

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Rakesh Gupta

Shared April 7, 2016

In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not fat – was the greatest danger to our health. But his findings were ridiculed and his reputation ruined. How did the world’s top nutrition scientists get it so wrong for so long?

Roberto Rocha

Shared June 6, 2016

Long but fascinating history of how low-fat diets became mainstream, despite the bad science around it, and the disastrous results to public health.

Martin Soler

Shared May 3, 2016

Consipracies are great click bait. But the story of sugar is an interesting one. And subsitutes can't be too good either.

Dan Bender

Shared May 17, 2016

Ever since I cut sugar out of my nutrition, I've been in the best shape of my life, performing better at every aspect, more healthy, ....

Kristoffer Tjalve

Shared April 11, 2016

Disturbing to be presented with such an obvious flaw in the academic system.

Ajay Antony

Shared 6 days ago

Mind boggling..

Mark Meinema

Shared May 9, 2016

How scientists kept a gross mistake under wraps for over 40 years.

Nick Handel

Shared April 18, 2016

The cost of ignoring the scientific method.

In nutrition, the game is to confirm what you and your predecessors have always believed.

Chaitanya Lakkapragada

Shared April 14, 2016

Extraordinary piece on how the nutrition science community has cheated people for 40+ years by ignoring sugar's bad effects

Will Knott

Shared May 2, 2016

Sometimes you see people who are possibly wrong doubling down, and getting vicious.

Ionut Tudorel

Shared May 7, 2016

Adică asta

Sanjeev Srivastava

Shared April 10, 2016

1972, the same year Yudkin published Pure, White and Deadly

Ric Caliolio

Shared April 14, 2016

Science, politics, and public nutrition

Andrew Eisenberg

Shared April 13, 2016

There is more to this than I had thought.

Thomas Daly

Shared April 23, 2016

A long read but well worth your health. This is a really good piece.

Kenny Chan

Shared May 8, 2016

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Sukarn S. Maini

Shared April 9, 2016

The article should be called "the anti-fat conspiracy"

Pete Marcus

Shared April 13, 2016

Fat doesn't make you fat, sugar makes you fat...

Tomka

Shared April 15, 2016

#longread

Jorge Alejandre

Shared April 15, 2016

Very interesting read on the "science" of nutrition

Susana Arroyo

Shared April 8, 2016

Sobre el azúcar y las guerras de control científico.

In a 2015 paper titled Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?, a team of scholars at the National Bureau of Economic Research sought an empirical basis for a remark made by the physicist Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Silvia Minu Patriche

Shared April 8, 2016

Since the proportion of energy we get from protein tends to stay stable, whatever our diet, a low-fat diet effectively means a high-carbohydrate diet.

Silvia Minu Patriche

Shared April 8, 2016

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Silvia Minu Patriche

Shared April 8, 2016

“If only a small fraction of what we know about the effects of sugar were to be revealed in relation to any other material used as a food additive,” wrote Yudkin, “that material would promptly be banned.”

Lilian Chisca

Shared May 8, 2016

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Isaac McQuistion

Shared April 14, 2016

Because the food pyramid sits on a throne of lies.

William Green

Shared January 8, 2017

It all started with a heart attack of a president and a bad diagnosis.

Lukasz Dolata

Shared April 25, 2016

Słodka śmierć chodzi za nami od wieków #zdrowie

Angelo Giannatos

Shared July 8, 2016

Sugar!

Roman Meliška

Shared April 7, 2016

We replaced steak and sausages with pasta and rice, butter with margarine and vegetable oils, eggs with muesli, and milk with low-fat milk or orange juice. But instead of becoming healthier, we grew fatter and sicker.

Camilo Luna

Shared April 21, 2016

“If only a small fraction of what we know about the effects of sugar were to be revealed in relation to any other material used as a food additive,” wrote Yudkin, “that material would promptly be banned.”

L. X. and R.

Shared April 8, 2016

Why are there so many skeptical about vaccines and climate change? Because the command to listen to scientists "because they're scientists" rings hollow when catastrophic mistakes made in the field under high authority are glossed over. Trust can only and must be re-earned through honest and open humility.

Pablo Massa

Shared April 13, 2016

El azúcar en unos años va a ser ridículo como los avisos de puchos de los 20s.

Eric Lo

Shared June 2, 2016

There's a term for getting financial backing from a powerful figure in exchange for cooperation...

David R.

Shared June 28, 2017

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Drew Dawson

Shared June 13, 2016

A must read for anyone interested in obesity, dieting, or nutrition.

Felippe Katan

Shared September 16, 2016

Loco

Josef Pospíšil

Shared April 12, 2016

Sweet as hell.

Malcolm Lalkaka

Shared April 13, 2016

Absolutely brilliant article about how the nutrition advice we've been fed for decades has been just plain wrong.

Kudos to @mrianleslie for some of the best journalism I've read in years!

Mat Tyndall

Shared April 17, 2016

😱

Kenji Saisho

Shared 3 days ago

A scientist is part of what the Polish philosopher of science Ludwik Fleck called a “thought collective”: a group of people exchanging ideas in a mutually comprehensible idiom. The group, suggested Fleck, inevitably develops a mind of its own, as the individuals in it converge on a way of communicating, thinking and feeling.

This makes scientific inquiry prone to the eternal rules of human social life: deference to the charismatic, herding towards majority opinion, punishment for deviance, and intense discomfort with admitting to error.

Javi Leal

Shared April 8, 2016

Fantastic read.

Bijur Vallark

Shared April 15, 2016

The more cholesterol you eat , the less will be produced by the liver. No connection found b/w the cholesterol you eat becoming blood cholesterol.

Unsurprisingly, then, repeated attempts to prove a correlation between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol failed. For the vast majority of people, eating two or three, or 25 eggs a day, does not significantly raise cholesterol levels. One of the most nutrient-dense, versatile and delicious foods we have was needlessly stigmatised. The health authorities have spent the last few years slowly backing away from this mistake, presumably in the hope that if no sudden movements are made, nobody will notice. In a sense, they have succeeded: a survey carried out in 2014 by Credit Suisse found that 54% of US doctors believe that dietary cholesterol raises blood cholesterol.

Morite Makola

Shared April 24, 2016

Sugar is a fat problem!

Flynn Jones

Shared May 8, 2016

This was a very insightful article on nutrion sciences in this country.

Anestis Sifnos

Shared May 14, 2016

A fantastic article shedding light to a huge conspiracy by the dairy industry and a group of elite "experts" who repeatedly tried to hide the fact that it is SUGAR that we need to worry about and not FATS! A fascinating read that I recommend to anyone that liked the investigative journalism aspect of the movie spotlight.
There is an audio version too: http://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2016/apr/22/the-sugar-conspiracy
#longreads

Robin Chiang

Shared April 9, 2016

Interesting summary of how the making of the diabetic crisis we face today

Alex Bair

Shared April 9, 2016

This is the most important knowledge about the contemporary diet.

Rachel Cotterill

Shared April 9, 2016

"...such tendencies are precisely what the scientific method was invented to correct for, and over the long run, it does a good job of it. In the long run, however, we’re all dead, quite possibly sooner than we would be if we hadn’t been following a diet based on poor advice..."

Tyler Webb

Shared April 9, 2016

Obviously has a bias but a great thought provoking read. I'm gonna go cut down on the sugar now...

Tamiza Abji

Shared April 10, 2016

Just to confirm, not all scientific evidence is created equal.

Orlando Trejo

Shared April 14, 2016

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Orlando Trejo

Shared April 15, 2016

By opening the gates of publishing to all, the internet has flattened hierarchies everywhere they exist. We no longer live in a world in which elites of accredited experts are able to dominate conversations about complex or contested matters.

Casey Hood

Shared April 11, 2016

If ever there was a case that an information democracy, even a very messy one, is preferable to an information oligarchy, then the history of nutrition advice is it.

Sharman Shukla

Shared May 1, 2016

Pretty much a must read, absolutely shocking and this knowledge must be known to the general public.

Eric Ekong

Shared July 30, 2016

If you eat food... (TLDR: Eat less sugar; scientists are flawed humans)

Craig Wilson

Shared September 9, 2016

Or, when the scientific method fails.

o m

Shared April 11, 2016

круто

Nitesh Bhasin

Shared April 13, 2016

Must read

heretic

Mohammad Asif ul Haq

Shared April 17, 2016

Eye opening article in so many ways. Over several decades, people have been led to believe that fat, rather than sugar, is the main enemy of good health by biased, economically and politically motivated research. Those who take scientific publications to be absolute truth not influenced by any ulterior motives should also take note.

Evan Zeisel

Shared April 29, 2016

Worth the long read. Looks into the farce that is the nutritional science that lead to incorrect US dietery guidelines for the past 50+ years. Summary: Sugar and Simple Carbs linked with heart disease while fat intake is NOT actually linked. Also a look into intake of cholesterol and it not actually affecting personal internal cholesterol levels. Generally, an interesting read to learn how internal politics and hubrous pretty much led to horrible dietery guidelines.

Michael Bligh

Shared April 11, 2016

"He noted, too, that while humans have always been carnivorous, carbohydrates only became a major component of their diet 10,000 years ago, with the advent of mass agriculture. Sugar – a pure carbohydrate, with all fibre and nutrition stripped out – has been part of western diets for just 300 years; in evolutionary terms, it is as if we have, just this second, taken our first dose of it. Saturated fats, by contrast, are so intimately bound up with our evolution that they are abundantly present in breast milk. To Yudkin’s thinking, it seemed more likely to be the recent innovation, rather than the prehistoric staple, making us sick."

Amanda Thouvenin

Shared April 12, 2016

Article très intéressant à propos des conseils de nutrition des 30 dernières années

Dennis G

Shared April 14, 2016

Eat less sugar, eat more fat or something like that. Really interesting analysis about the failure to incorporate existing evidence in nutrition science.

If ever there was a case that an information democracy, even a very messy one, is preferable to an information oligarchy, then the history of nutrition advice is it

Chris Cioffi

Shared April 15, 2016

Is nutrition science synonymous with homeopathy? Science and evidence free. Sheesh!

Arun Kannan

Shared April 16, 2016

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Ben Hansen

Shared April 17, 2016

In the long run, however, we’re all dead, quite possibly sooner than we would be if we hadn’t been following a diet based on poor advice.

Brian Faulkner

Shared April 19, 2016

A well written article that points out people's general willingness to believe what they are told. It is unfortunate that nutritional research is done so differently than other fields of science.

Ilia Gerasimov

Shared April 27, 2016

Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Cristián Ayala

Shared May 7, 2016

Years later, the Seven Countries study’s lead Italian researcher, Alessandro Menotti, went back to the data, and found that the food that correlated most closely with deaths from heart disease was not saturated fat, but sugar.

Cristián Ayala

Shared May 7, 2016

remark made by the physicist Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Cristián Ayala

Shared May 7, 2016

But it is a biological error to confuse what a person puts in their mouth with what it becomes after it is swallowed.

Cristián Ayala

Shared May 7, 2016

Gary Taubes is a physicist by background. “In physics,” he told me, “You look for the anomalous result. Then you have something to explain. In nutrition, the game is to confirm what you and your predecessors have always believed.”

Cristián Ayala

Shared May 7, 2016

The nutritional establishment has proved itself, over the years, skilled at ad hominem takedowns, but it is harder for them to do to Robert Lustig or Nina Teicholz what they once did to John Yudkin. Harder, too, to deflect or smother the charge that the promotion of low-fat diets was a 40-year fad, with disastrous outcomes, conceived of, authorised, and policed by nutritionists.

stelios savva

Shared November 16, 2016

A scientist is part of what the Polish philosopher of science Ludwik Fleck called a “thought collective”: a group of people exchanging ideas in a mutually comprehensible idiom. The group, suggested Fleck, inevitably develops a mind of its own, as the individuals in it converge on a way of communicating, thinking and feeling.

This makes scientific inquiry prone to the eternal rules of human social life: deference to the charismatic, herding towards majority opinion, punishment for deviance, and intense discomfort with admitting to error. Of course, such tendencies are precisely what the scientific method was invented to correct for, and over the long run, it does a good job of it. In the long run, however, we’re all dead, quite possibly sooner than we would be if we hadn’t been following a diet based on poor advice.

Mike Daley

Shared April 12, 2016

I will die on the hill of defending the scientific method, but man, did nutritionists shit the bed here...

Justin Vencel

Shared April 17, 2016

WTF!!!

Greg Berlin

Shared April 17, 2016

Interesting read... And there's one reasons why I don't just "trust the experts" all the time.

Jakub Zeman

Shared April 18, 2016

How scientist and their pride with support of officials are killing more people than wars etc.

Cristi Farcas

Shared July 13, 2016

But, as Gary Taubes puts it, obese people are not fat because they are overeating and sedentary – they are overeating and sedentary because they are fat, or getting fatter.

Michael Williams

Shared April 13, 2016

Conspiracy is right. This blew my mind.

Joshua Skaja

Shared April 19, 2016

We tend to think of heretics as contrarians, individuals with a compulsion to flout conventional wisdom. But sometimes a heretic is simply a mainstream thinker who stays facing the same way while everyone around him turns 180 degrees.

Joshua Skaja

Shared April 19, 2016

scientific inquiry prone to the eternal rules of human social life: deference to the charismatic, herding towards majority opinion, punishment for deviance, and intense discomfort with admitting to error.

Marc Rabell

Shared April 21, 2016

40 anys de recomanacions nutricionals sense fonament científic.

Liane Yue

Shared April 25, 2016

For the vast majority of people, eating two or three, or 25 eggs a day, does not significantly raise cholesterol levels. One of the most nutrient-dense, versatile and delicious foods we have was needlessly stigmatised. The health authorities have spent the last few years slowly backing away from this mistake, presumably in the hope that if no sudden movements are made, nobody will notice.

Dan Wilson

Shared April 10, 2016

It is simply appalling that we have ended up where we are today in our views about fat and sugar. It's amazing that the scientific method has been on hold for so long in the area of nutrition.

Mathis Müller

Shared April 11, 2016

“The cure should not be worse than the disease.”

Dominik Goj

Shared April 25, 2016

I've always believed the sugars were the culprits. Nothing beats exercise though.

Florian B

Shared April 30, 2016

I initially agreed with the dietary guideline revision but now I feel like I need to go back and take another look at the whole Teichholz, BMJ thing

Danielle Bastien

Shared February 4, 2017

Protecting ego at the cost of the human race's health.

alexandra f

Shared April 14, 2017

But it is a biological error to confuse what a person puts in their mouth with what it becomes after it is swallowed. The human body, far from being a passive vessel for whatever we choose to fill it with, is a busy chemical plant, transforming and redistributing the energy it receives.

Ryan Waite

Shared April 15, 2017

Eisenhower himself cut saturated fats and cholesterol from his diet altogether, right up until his death, in 1969, from heart disease.

Li-an Yu

Shared November 18, 2017

你對飲食的堅持很可能都是錯的 XDDDDD

Rico Trevisan

Shared August 23, 2018

But, as Gary Taubes puts it, obese people are not fat because they are overeating and sedentary – they are overeating and sedentary because they are fat, or getting fatter.

Se Co

Shared May 22, 2016

<3

Simon Reisman

Shared April 17, 2016

An article about sugar and science

Josue Ledesma

Shared May 6, 2016

Iiinteresting. Not much of a conspiracy put forth here but it's always funny (in an odd way) to see old research surface again because it turned out to be right

Darren Van Soye

Shared April 10, 2016

But instead of becoming healthier, we grew fatter and sicker... Why low fat diets are not the answer.

maharjan aman

Shared April 11, 2016

something hidden from public eyes

K leo

Shared April 12, 2016

Fascinating history about nutrition.

Ivaylo Konov

Shared April 9, 2016

Magnificent and inspiring story.

Mariano A. Berazaluce

Shared April 11, 2016

Vale la pena darse el tiempo de leerlo.

Luis Hoyo

Shared April 15, 2016

El Panama papers de la nutrición.

Christopher Crammond

Shared April 9, 2016

Interesting long-read on why the high-carb, low-fat diet hasn't come under much scrutiny.

Paulina Pascual

Shared April 20, 2016

Fascinating. I didn't realize there was a "sugar conspiracy." If your well-being is important to you, take a read.

elisabeth ienzi

Shared April 7, 2016

🌟🌟🌟🌟

John Cooper

Shared April 8, 2016

Turns out scientists are just as corrupt as the rest of us.

Carlos De la Peña

Shared April 10, 2016

Great reading

Matthias Lampe

Shared April 13, 2016

very good article about the history why we came to believe that fat in our meals is bad and how the sugar hypothesis was discredited. Worth spending the time to read!

jb m

Shared April 19, 2016

An important piece of journalism. The takeaway: read about nutrition, and question the source.

Pablo Alarcón

Shared April 27, 2016

La obesidad está relacionada con el azúcar y no con el consumo de grasas saturadas. Todo lo que creíamos acerca de la nutrición se derrumba.

Antony D'Angelo

Shared May 8, 2016

This makes you question what you thought you knew about food

игги Kapitula

Shared May 11, 2016

interesting

Elizabeth Paradise

Shared May 20, 2017

A very deep reasoning explaining the sugar crisis.

Matt Brown

Shared April 12, 2016

Excellent.

Bob Oyee

Shared April 20, 2016

La idea de que es la grasa lo que nos hace engordar es un mito. Pero hay una oligarquía científica protegiendo una idea de 1950.

Jon Gilbert

Shared July 9, 2016

, as Gary Taubes puts it, obese people are not fat because they are overeating and sedentary – they are overeating and sedentary because they are fat, or getting fatter.

Luke Foster

Shared January 1, 2017

Sugar vs fat, and how nutritionists ignore scientific research that doesn't suit them.

Alexey Shiklomanov

Shared May 4, 2016

This makes scientific inquiry prone to the eternal rules of human social life: deference to the charismatic, herding towards majority opinion, punishment for deviance, and intense discomfort with admitting to error. Of course, such tendencies are precisely what the scientific method was invented to correct for, and over the long run, it does a good job of it. In the long run, however, we’re all dead, quite possibly sooner than we would be if we hadn’t been following a diet based on poor advice.

Alexey Shiklomanov

Shared May 4, 2016

It is a familiar complaint. By opening the gates of publishing to all, the internet has flattened hierarchies everywhere they exist. We no longer live in a world in which elites of accredited experts are able to dominate conversations about complex or contested matters. Politicians cannot rely on the aura of office to persuade, newspapers struggle to assert the superior integrity of their stories. It is not clear that this change is, overall, a boon for the public realm. But in areas where experts have a track record of getting it wrong, it is hard to see how it could be worse. If ever there was a case that an information democracy, even a very messy one, is preferable to an information oligarchy, then the history of nutrition advice is it.

Dave Seeman

Shared May 20, 2016

This article changed how I think about my food

Jordi Saludes

Shared June 30, 2016

Gary Taubes is a physicist by background. “In physics,” he told me, “You look for the anomalous result. Then you have something to explain. In nutrition, the game is to confirm what you and your predecessors have always believed.” As one nutritionist explained to Nina Teicholz, with delicate understatement: “Scientists believe that saturated fat is bad for you, and there is a good deal of reluctance toward accepting evidence to the contrary.”

Jordi Saludes

Shared July 14, 2016

It is a familiar complaint. By opening the gates of publishing to all, the internet has flattened hierarchies everywhere they exist. We no longer live in a world in which elites of accredited experts are able to dominate conversations about complex or contested matters. Politicians cannot rely on the aura of office to persuade, newspapers struggle to assert the superior integrity of their stories. It is not clear that this change is, overall, a boon for the public realm. But in areas where experts have a track record of getting it wrong, it is hard to see how it could be worse. If ever there was a case that an information democracy, even a very messy one, is preferable to an information oligarchy, then the history of nutrition advice is it.

Aurimas Račas

Shared April 15, 2016

Amazing story on politics in science. Herd mentality at its worst!

Time for sugarless tea.

George Welch

Shared April 18, 2016

When

Tim Grosch

Shared April 20, 2016

Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Paul Lawley-Jones

Shared April 27, 2016

Excellent article; well worth the time to read it.