171–180 of 261 posts
Should we trust the government to decide what food is “healthy”? Absolutely not. Just look at how many times the “recommenced diet” has changed in the past few decades. There’s no reason to expect that the current evidence against sugar is more correct than previous (now debunked) evidence against fat. What’s more, what’s healthy depends on who you are. People with eating disorders, for example, need easy access to c…
Social media is the new smoking not sugar
FYI: This article is referring to requiring sugary products to use plain packaging: > ...suggested sweets, snacks and sugary drinks should be wrapped in plain packaging to make them less appealing, given the excess consumption of the sweet stuff (I think some of the responses here are assuming the question is about treating sugar like smoking in other respects.)
I think people are afraid of a slippery slope. Legislation is almost always done in a slippery slope manner - at first you limit things a little and wait until people accept it. After a while you limit some more, then some more and then some more. You can do whatever you want with sugar, but it's not going to solve the obesity problem. Not only are carbs one of the few macro nutrients we can digest, they're also in p…
All of this is further hampered by other factors as well such as the disappearing HomeEc curriculum, the general faddness of dieting in the press (this article being a good example) and a misconception on the behalf of the public on matters related to food consumption. There is almost a mysticism/dogma about how food works that seems to prevail over discourse related to nutrition these days. Furthermore, there is a return to quackery lately with things such as alkaline diets and such despite the fact that most of the foods that they suggest to eat, such as fruit, are often more acidic rather than basic. I blame this on MLMs trying to sell water to middle class retards too stupid to understand that they are being swindled. Sugar is not the Great Satan of food. It's simply people that are too ignorant to understand what they are eating will continue to make poor choices.
How about we start treating alcohol like smoking? For example ban alcohol advertising like we have with tobacco and I bet society would improve in a lot of unforeseen ways (besides the obvious reduction in alcohol related deaths and diseases and family issues).
For most people, alcohol isn’t addictive in the same way that smoking or sugar is. If you eat stuff with a lot of sugar it makes things without sugar actually taste worse. Whereas drinking alcohol doesn’t make water taste worse or whatever. Also alcohol only kills 80k or so Americans per year, way less than smoking or sugar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The number of "Obese People" far outweighs the number of chronic alcoholics... we are talking about almost 1/3rd of the population being obese (i.e. not just a bit fat, or chubby, just straight out obese).
Is obesity a sign of sugar addiction? I don’t think so. People addicted to substances like alcohol and heroin will go out of their way to obtain these substances breaking laws and ruining others’ lives if necessary. While obese people are just... obese, not crazy nor dangerous. Their mind don’t get wired by sugar to put sugar in front of decency and laws. Not to mention sugar is not the only cause of obesity anyway.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For most people, alcohol isn’t addictive in the same way that smoking or sugar is. If you eat stuff with a lot of sugar it makes things without sugar actually taste worse. Whereas drinking alcohol doesn’t make water taste worse or whatever. Also alcohol only kills 80k or so Americans per year, way less than smoking or sugar.
The local university research hospital emergency room is busiest by far on Friday and Saturday nights due to alcohol-related incidents. NIDA puts the overall US national cost of tobacco use at $300 billion and of alcohol use at $249 billion. It's impossible to become physically dependent on sugar, whereas an alcoholic can die if they quit cold turkey.
How about we start treating alcohol like smoking? For example ban alcohol advertising like we have with tobacco and I bet society would improve in a lot of unforeseen ways (besides the obvious reduction in alcohol related deaths and diseases and family issues).
It’s banned in Iceland. The big breweries simply offer a low alcohol with the same branding and advertise those. Poor tourists end up being the only ones buying them, not knowing they are low alcohol, as they are allowed to sell the low alcohol beers in the grocery stores while regular beer can only be sold at the state run liqueur stores.
Another opened a horse holiday farm, whose abbreviation - "WTK", following the brand's well recognizable name - happens to sound pretty much like "wódka" :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alcohol: https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-co... Sugar: https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/experts-is-...
the second is not a good source. The title is misleading as the article itself says experts don't agree. I don't think it's clear what is an "addiction", as addiction is part of how humans (and all brains) work. reinforcement of reward is necessary for normal function. The most discrete sign of addiction would be the molecular switch DeltaFosB which is manifest in behavioral and drug addictions. However, for things l…
That's the genetic fallacy. They link to a number of other sources from that article with supporting information such as a Connecticut College study and a Princeton University study. I would deem university sources "good" (although you're still subject to cherry-picking and the like)
I'm not harmed if I'm sitting next to a someone who is consuming sugar. What we should have is health insurance premiums based on risk factors such as obesity, even in public systems.
Next thing we know we're all constantly monitored for every single health metrics and pay more for every one that is slightly off.
"Bacon every morning ? Well sorry sir but that'll be $30 more per year. Oh and you drive to work instead of cycling, that's another $60. Our tracking system tells us that you were sitting more than 7 hours per day on average for the last month so we'll have to charge you $0.55 per seated hours for the next 6 months. You should also think about your monthly running goal, you only have 3 days left and 36km to go."
We could also stop insuring people when they start getting unhealthy. Imagine the profit !! /s
What we should do is better educate people about health and stop trying to get them addicted as much and as early as we can.