Another example of biased reporting right in front of your eyes. Watch out!

When I have some free time and crave some food for thought I go on Youtube and check the suggestions based on what I used to watch in the history. This time I came across a video capturing a presentation of Ashley Gearhardt, MS Mphil from Yale university. 

The opening sounded familiar, I have seen it when watching Dr Lustig's lectures on Youtube. Also the title of the video said: 

And then this was following at the beginning:

OK. I am always open to unbiased scientific knowledge, even if that meant to change my view on the problem. So I watched the whole video. 

How surprised I was when Ms Gearhardt did not focus on sugar only. Instead, her title was: 

 

Now I wonder how the person who uploaded this video came to the title focusing on sugar? Even the title of the whole event did not suggest sugar at all: 

The world seems to go crazy about sugar, ignoring anything else, perhaps equally dangerous for us. 

And I also could see Dr Lustig in the video later on, he was preparing for his own talk after Ms Gearhardt. 

Here is a video, which will enable you to see what the whole event was about. The obesity and health inequality is a much complicated issue than sugar intake. A similar slide with a different title also suggests so: 

As I explained elsewhere, people are made to see the picture they are wanted to see and they are happy to see it and agree with it after all. If only they knew better and thought little more critically as I do. 

If they did, they must have noticed what I have noticed in Ms Gearhardt's presentation: 

Have YOU noticed? 

All first three addictive foods reported by addicts are not only sweet from sugar. They also contain FAT! Only the fourth item, candy, is usually mostly sugar. And what follows is starch based and fat laden processed food, lacking sugar or fructose whatsoever: french fries and chips. The following two items which were not as likely addictive were lacking both; sugar and fat. 

Do you get it? 

Most of the time, when there is sugar, there is also fat. Adding salt to this creates the addictive cocktail of high fat, sugar and salt foods (HFSS), which are so typical for fast food and processed food industry. This is the order the term exists: first is fat, then sugar and then salt. Even Dr Lustig finally announced french fries and chips as the most fattening foods in the world, sugar came as third. And I have already referred to another review of food cravings and addiction in my article here. If that was not enough, here I have found a short video which will give you more insight into how the food industry works hard to make you eat their products, and that is again not only about sugar. 

And this is in contrast with what Ms Marianne Szeto talked about in her speech at about 8:20 minute that only sugar has been linked with the risk of obesity in California. Well, maybe there is something specific in dietary patterns in Californians that makes only the sugar stand out. But I suspect something else. Take a typical diet of a regular fast-food customer. One day it is McDonald's with burger, fries, milkshake. The other day it is Nando's with whatever they serve, laden with fat, washed down with a soft drink. The other day it is Pizza Hut with their famous thick pizza with generous portion of cheese on top. Another day it may be again McDonald's or some Indian of Chinese takeaway, again laden with fat, finished with a can of soft drink. Then the person usually snacks on chocolate, other sweets, many times on salted crisps and other savoury snacks, washing it down with sugary drinks every single day, several times per day. Now tell me: could you expect that Pizza Hut makes people fat when they eat it only once a week? Or Nando's? Of course it will be the sugar that comes out, especially in soft drinks as these provide most of the sugar to the diet of many. Have you noticed this unequal view? The extra fat seems to mean nothing, fatty foods are not looked at the same way as sugar and sugary drinks. And they call this statistics. 

However, there is nothing wrong about statistic. But the result of statistical analysis is as good as is the data that was used for the analysis. If the data was rubbish, then is the outcome of the statistical analysis. And you should remember this when you will hear anyone, not just Dr Lustig, saying that they do not believe in common sense - they belive in data.

The truth is right in front of your eyes folks, just keep your eyes and mind open!