Author Topic: Controversial sugar industry study on cancer uncovered  (Read 650 times)

Offline Pookie

  • Charter Member
  • Motor Mouth
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Posts: 4329
  • Country: us
  • Proud member of the Wet Food Club
Controversial sugar industry study on cancer uncovered
« on: November 22, 2017, 09:41:19 PM »
If it wasn't so pathetic, it might actually be funny.  But it just goes to show that the truth does always come out eventually:

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.

This enigmatic study seems to provide evidence of the harmful health impacts of eating too much sugar. It also suggests that a group then called the Sugar Research Foundation might have manipulated scientific research in its favor, according to the newpaper.

The authors of the new paper previously conducted a separate historical analysis of sugar industry-related documents and studies.

That analysis, published last year in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggested that the Sugar Research Foundation sponsored a research program that successfully cast doubt about the health hazards of a high-sugar diet and rather promoted fat "as the dietary culprit" in health concerns such as heart disease.

"We reviewed our research archives and found documentation that the study in question ended for three reasons, none of which involved potential research findings: the study was significantly delayed; it was consequently over budget; and the delay overlapped with an organizational restructuring with the Sugar Research Foundation becoming a new entity, the International Sugar Research Foundation," the association's statement said.

"There were plans to continue the study with funding from the British Nutrition Foundation, but, for reasons unbeknown to us, this did not occur," the statement said.

In response, Kearns pointed out that other studies that overlapped with that organizational restructuring were still continued.

None of those other "reasons" given are valid reasons to NOT publish a study, IMO.  They already had the data at that point, so why not publish it.  But this just adds to my personal opinion that "studies" should be taken with a grain of salt, so to speak, because data can be manipulated or in this case, hidden/buried.

Here's the part that made me laugh from the absurdity:

The Sugar Association's statement added that sugar consumed in moderation can be part of a balanced lifestyle and that the association remains committed to supporting research to further understand the role sugar plays in consumers' diets.

And if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, real cheap.   >:D

All in all, the new paper's findings were "striking" and "ethically concerning" to Dr. Sanjay Basu, an assistant professor of medicine at Stanford University who was not involved in the work.

"The context for this historically is that during the time at which these studies were taking place, a lot of dietary recommendations were being formulated that emphasized reducing high-fat foods in particular, and in many cases low-fat foods were replaced by high-sugar foods to be more palatable," said Basu, who has studied the health impacts of added sugars in his own research.

"The fact that sugar was not being considered an additionally concerning substance unfortunately led to a lot of changes in the American diet that correspond to a rise in obesity and type 2 diabetes," Basu said.

I would also bet that the push to "reduce high-fat foods" along with the increase in high-sugar foods is why you're seeing more dementia and Alzheimer's these days.  Decades of starving the brain of fat (a good part of the brain is made up of fat) and increasing inflammatory substances like sugar has consequences.  Just my  2cents.

2-4-6-8  Please don't over-vaccinate!
"Pass on what you have learned."  -- Yoda, Star Wars:  Return of the Jedi

Offline Middle Child

  • Charter Member
  • Motor Mouth
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 7997
  • Country: us
  • Just say No to declawing
Re: Controversial sugar industry study on cancer uncovered
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2017, 08:37:07 AM »
Thanks for the info.  I'm not short of fat or sugar in my diet, though I do try to control the sugar, as it is my addictive drug of choice.

Offline DeeDee

  • P-F's Twitter-er
  • Charter Member
  • Motor Mouth
  • Join Date: Jul 2012
  • Posts: 6013
  • Country: us
  • Barkly & Vlad
Re: Controversial sugar industry study on cancer uncovered
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2017, 09:47:27 AM »
Thank you for this! When I get really, really stressed, I crave sweet things. I've always known it wasn't a sign of anything good because I only crave things that are bad for me. I crave sugar--and I most often crave the things I'm allergic to during these times. I'll be sure to try harder to ignore the cravings or replace them with SOMETHING.
"In order to really enjoy a dog, one doesn't merely try to train him to be semihuman. The point of it is to open oneself to the possibility of becoming partly a dog." Edward Hoagland
"Thorns may hurt you, men desert you, sunlight turn to fog; but you're never friendless ever, if you have a dog."