Reducing sugar in packaged foods can prevent disease in millions

Post by theshrike79 » Sun, Aug 29, 2021, 6:57 AM UTC

EamonnMR wrote: post #3

guerrilla wrote: post #2

But if sugar is addictive, as it seems it is, this would cost a significant fraction of annual revenue to food producers, so there's no way they'd do it. Even if it's not literally addictive, it's clearly attractive and they'd take a big hit.

What baffles me is that artificial sweeteners exist and yet there is enough (imo) unfounded FUD about them that leads people to instead choose Sugar or Nothing (which inevitably translates to Sugar because of the pseudo-addictiveness you mention.) Is wireheading bad? Maybe, but if I'm going to be doing it either way I'd rather reduce the harm.

Post by fredros » Sun, Aug 29, 2021, 7:05 AM UTC

betwixthewires wrote: post #64

paraph1n wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hold on a second, the linked research is about sugar. I've seen a lot of similar studies suggesting sugar consumption is a problem. Is salt consumption also unhealthy? I was under the impression that it's not.

From what I understand excess consumption causes increase in blood pressure and subsequent cardiovascular problems. Definitely nowhere near as dangerous as sugar, and you die without salt, not so with sugar, but Americans do consume too much of it.

Post by spiderice » Sun, Aug 29, 2021, 7:31 AM UTC

james4k wrote: post #80

sjwalter wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment "should reduce oils" is silly. Oils as a category are hugely important to good health. Presumably, eliminating the bad oils is the way to go. The way I do it is to have a palette of base ingredients for each of fat, acid, and heat. You can create a lot of beautiful, artful meals with a very limited palette. My fat palette, for instance, is primarily rendered animal fats (pork lard, then beef tallow…

What do you think oil is? It's processed food. And I never said you have to get rid of it entirely. But there's no doubt we use too much of it. Why is that controversial? And there is too much consensus around saturated fat being involved in both cardiovascular disease and diabetes for me to say animal fats are a good substitute. It's a step in the wrong direction, even. The only thing worse might be palm oil.

Post by zamfi » Sun, Aug 29, 2021, 7:34 AM UTC

paraph1n wrote: post #59

betwixthewires wrote: post #46

I'd add salt to that. Americans consume way too much of these two ingredients. I cook some good stuff but I take it easy on the salt, it tastes better that way, and almost everyone that tries it says it needs more. I like sugar, I use a little bit in my coffee, tea, I like fruits and stuff. But I don't drink soda or eat pastries or candy (except in November). Knowing how much sugar I used to consume really baffles me…

Hold on a second, the linked research is about sugar. I've seen a lot of similar studies suggesting sugar consumption is a problem. Is salt consumption also unhealthy? I was under the impression that it's not.

Post by KingMachiavelli » Sun, Aug 29, 2021, 7:41 AM UTC

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #74

ravenstine wrote: post #43

> Product reformulation efforts have been shown to be successful in reducing other harmful nutrients, such as trans fats and sodium. Trans fats are harmful (well except some natural ones), but how can sodium be a harmful nutrient unless you have existing cardiovascular or renal issues? Seems like a strange statement.

When I read things like this, I feel that a nutrition class should be required in US high school. Not a unit about nutrition during health class, but a full semester on nutrition. Salt (sodium) is terrible for blood pressure. Just search keywords “salt blood pressure”. And if you don’t know why high blood pressure is bad for you, that’s ok. Spend 2 minutes reading about it, that’s all you need.