The Sugar Conspiracy: How Harvard Scientists Were Paid To Blame Fat for Heart Disease – Healthy Living Association

The Sugar Conspiracy: How Harvard Scientists Were Paid To Blame Fat for Heart Disease

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States.

It kills over 600,000 Americans every year, and is responsible for a whopping 1 out of every 4 deaths in the U.S. So it’s no surprise that scientists have been focused on finding ways to lower our risk of heart disease for decades.

Originally, they thought dietary fat was to blame.

This led to the rise of the low-fat movement, starting in the 1960s. But, as we know now, fat is NOT public enemy #1 when it comes to heart disease.

It’s sugar.

Which is why an explosive new paper published in the Journal of American Medicine Association is making waves in the research community.

The paper reveals a stunning, decades old sugar industry conspiracy to shift the blame.

But even more shocking is the fact that scientists from Harvard have been implicated in this industry-funded conspiracy to increase American sugar consumption.

Here’s how it went down.

The Birth of Big Sugar’s Conspiracy to Blame Fat

Back in 1954, a man named Henry Hass, president of the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), gave a speech to industry insiders.

In it, he painted a picture of a thrilling new business opportunity.

If American consumers could be persuaded to see dietary fat as a health risk,he told them, many would cut it out altogether.

And they’d have to replace it with something else — sugar.

He figured America’s sugar consumption could shoot up by as much as one third.

However, by the early 1960s, the impact of sugar on our health was becoming clearer and clearer. It was seen as “a less desirable dietary source of calories than other carbohydrates,” according to John Hickson, a VP with the SRF.

So they decided to fund their own studies to “refute” these claims.

How the Sugar Industry Paid Harvard to Do its Dirty Work

At the time, the SRF had a little-known connection to Harvard:

The chairman of Harvard’s Public Health Nutrition Department was also a member of SRF’s board. Through him, the SRF paid for a “literature review” project, to the tune of about $50,000.

The purpose of a literature review project is to identify broader trends within a field of study.

In funding their own literature review, the SRF hand-picked a bunch of articles and expected researchers from Harvard to critique them.

And they got their wish.

The review paper, which was published in 1967, applied a clear double-standard to the articles it covered.

The authors heavily downplayed research that showed sugar increased the risk of heart disease — often claiming investigator incompetence or a flaw in the study’s methodology — only to ignore these same things in studies showing an association between fat and heart disease.

Some examples:

  • One study where rats were given a low-fat, high-sugar diet was rejected from the review because “such diets are rarely consumed by man.”
  • Another study that found health benefits from eating less sugar and more vegetables was dismissed because a dietary change like that was “not feasible.”

In the end, the study concluded that eating a low-fat diet was “no doubt” the best way to reduce the risk of heart disease.

But that wasn’t even the study’s biggest flaw.

Instead, it was that the paper did NOT disclose it was funded by the sugar industry!

A mind-boggling conflict of interest that remained hidden for decades.

Until now.

And while Big Sugar did what it could to conceal the long-term health impacts of sugar consumption, the bottom line is we now know the truth.

What Too Much Sugar Does to Your Body

According to Healthline, added sugars accounts for up to 17% of the total calorie intake of adults in the US.

Research has shown this eating much sugar can lead to:

  • Weight gain
  • Acne
  • Skin aging
  • Low energy
  • Fatty liver disease
  • And cognitive decline

Not to mention it can also increase your risk of heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer.

In other words, our addiction to sugar is making us fat, sick, and putting a crushing burden on our broken healthcare system.

So, what’s the easiest way to reduce your sugar intake?

Cutting out sugary drinks like soda and fruit juice.

A cup of fruit juice contains around 23 grams of sugar, while a can of soda has around 39 grams of sugar, depending on the brand.

Thing is, cutting out sugar doesn’t mean you can’t still enjoy a tasty beverage.

My favorite juice & soda substitute is this delicious sugar-free drink mix. It’s only got 10 calories per serving, which is next to nothing, and it’s great for a quick energy boost.

Or, if you’re looking for something a little more filling, you can also try this awesome protein & greens superfood mix. It’s only got 140 calories per serving, which is about half of what’s in a can of soda. Plus it’s got all kinds of vitamins and minerals in it to support healthy weight loss.

But really, what’s most important is that you find something sugar-free that works for you.

Now we want to know what YOU think. 

Did this article change your mind? Tell us about it in the comments!


References

1. Heart Disease Facts https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm

2.  50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat 

3. Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548255 

4. How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html 

5. The sweet danger of sugar https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/the-sweet-danger-of-sugar 

6. 11 Reasons Why Too Much Sugar Is Bad for You https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/too-much-sugar 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

↓