Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago
pbs.org
pbs.org
So food producers started making fat-free versions of everything. Only problem is it tasted like shit. So what did they do? They added sugar. So now you have sugar added to everything from salad dressing to pasta sauce to bread and muffins. The latter probably had some all along but the fat free varieties had a lot more.
Edit: I'll add that saturated fat was considered especially evil, which begat trans-fats substituted everywhere. Turned out they were even worse.
Bottom line, eat minimally processed meats and plants and you can stop worrying about it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1977/01/20/...
“Dr. Mark Hegsted, professor of nutrition at Harvard University and one of the three nutritionists who helped write the report, said: "There will undoubtedly be many people who will say we have not proven our point; we have not demonstrated that the dietary modifications we recommend will yield the dividends expected.
"The question to be asked therefore, is not why should we change our diet, but why not. "What are the risks associated with eating less meat, less fat, less saturated fat, less cholesterol, less sugar, less salt and more fruits, vegetables, unsaturated fat - and cereal products - especially whole-grain cereals? There are none that can be identified and important benefits can be expected."”
I find the history of that fascinating since the Nixon administration felt pressure to do something about the then-dramatic obesity crisis on a time-scale which was too short for the scientific process. They had some of it right (eat your vegetables!) but the big mistakes with fat and salt made the problem so much worse.
But to make a good trade, you need to know the relative benefits of two parts of the advice. Giving up fats might be good and/or neutral; but if it exhausts your willpower to avoid sugar, and you indulge, then you are worse off.
There's also an angle about how this pushed a lot of people to heavily processed foods because leaving out everything on that bad list left a much narrower list of things you could make at home which were also tasty.
I can't imagine a scenario where that cereal/grain recommendation in GP quote isn't sponsored or populistic at the time though.
And while their method/reasoning wasn't flawed if they indeed had no research opposing their recommendation, that's kind of a straw man from the main issue of avoiding fat being legitimately bad.
You need energy, and you get some from protein which you desperately need, but you can't get all your energy from protein, and that leaves you fats or carbs. Of those it's so much worse to avoid fat than carbs.
Olive oil is one of the four basic ingredients. (In addition to tomatoes, garlic, and salt.)
In terms of taking the edge off of tomato sauce, shredded carrots works pretty well. I don't use sugar in any of my cooking, and no one has noticed.
If you think that's not true, simply take a sugar-low bread (check the food label, don't just go for organic/whole-grain, those usually have more sugar) and taste it for a while in your mouth. You'll notice it starts to become sweeter in your mouth.
As long as you stick to proper bread without the crazy added sugar, and preferably whole grain (actual whole grain, not just marketing "whole grain"), it's not an issue. Unless you try to subsist on literally only bread, of course.
Sugar content in pasta sauces is almost random. Varies from 3 to 10 grams per serving at least. It seems to vary more than almost any other premade item I buy.
And yet, even though I still eat junk too often, and like some treacle, I would not sort sauces based on sugar content.
I can't tell if there's no correlation or if it is literally reversed for my taste buds, but often the high sugar ones are the worst to me.
Just a theory, but maybe the sugar enhances some flavors, like garlic, but masks others, like basil, rather than drawing them all out equally?
I'm not sure how well sugar's complex affect on taste is understood by food scientists, let alone smaller or newer food brands. (What do the generic brands have, a couple chefs and a couple rounds of taste tests? No idea.)
Maybe there are too many possible combinations of ingredients and market segments for producers to all agree on the proper role of sugar, and maybe they're mostly guessing.
If that's true, then we could all probably stand much less added sugar than we/they realize.
The end result is that most people find the taste of non-pumped chicken unappealing, because they're simply used to the faked-up salt/sugar chicken.
There was some lab-rat study super long ago where they got mice/rats addicted to sugar and cocaine, then let them pick between the two - and they chose the sugar every single time.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/wheat-belly-arguments-are-based-on-sh...
The only diet* I've had any luck with is the No S Diet: No Snacks, No Sweets, No Seconds, Except (sometimes) on days that start with "S".
So while I agree that cutting out added sugars is a damn good idea, I very much disagree with the unfounded "all carbs and grains are BAD!" alarmism.
It's not perfect, it doesn't make huge promises and it's not going to make the weight magically disappear instantly or even over a period of weeks, it's a long-term thing. But it is straight-forward and (most importantly) relatively easy to adhere to, and it doesn't require massive amount of effort, like diets where you have to count every calorie and in-depth micromanage your nutrients. Of course there is plenty of room for cheating (you could eat a whole plate of chocolate and call it a "meal"), but that's a fault of all diets where you're not actively forced by someone else to adhere to the rules.
Short-term diets are stupid and counterproductive. We don't need diets or temporary crash weight loss, which just leads to yo-yoing. We need actual, lasting lifestyle changes to make sure the weight stays off and we stay healthy.
That said, I think it's obvious that most people need to challenge the status quo of their diet. For Grain Brain to remind them "you are what you eat" is a step in the right direction. For both to suggest that you can be sensitive to gluten so give it up for 30 days...well, that's not going to hurt anyone either.
Moi? I read them as guidelines and suggestions. Sure, perhaps not 100% pure science, but there was a time when science said the world was flat, smoking was ok, etc.
To say "this things are worth looking at as you revist your health" might not be ideal. But neither is a bag of chips and a stack of cookies.
Ultimately it's about:
- Changing your relationship with food. Food is for health, not to experience an aural orgasm.
- Lifestyle. Diet is just one way to mind your health. Junk is junk, whether that's food, friends, or information. Trying to fix your health only via diet is, as you note, a fool's errand.
I'll have to check out those books, they sound really interesting. You might want to check out the book "The Case Against Sugar", it tells the story of sugar and is really interesting.
I imagine people were also eating much more whole foods as well, so saturation could have been lower regardless of what was in the junk food on the shelves at the time.
A study linked on HN recently also showed that sugars relationship to obesity snd diabetes may be that it changes your metabolism over time, and that change to your metabolism is what has you put on fat.
The guy claims he gained about 15kg over a one month period by substituting sugary foods into his diet while keeping his caloric intake the same. That's a massive claim which you'd expect to be backed up by pretty rigorous testing, yeah? Not even close. He doesn't even count his calories.
The whole time I was watching I was waiting to see the numbers. Spoiler alert: there aren't any. Halfway through the 'experiment' he states that he's never counted calories before, proceeds to do it just once, and then claims that his intake appears to be the same as it was before. To embark on a project like this and only measure your caloric intake once throughout the entire thing is incredibly disingenuous behaviour.
For instance, the evidence against trans fats is seriously overwhelming and convincing. The evidence against carbohydrates? Eh, not so much.
Avoid added sugar, don't worry so much about bread (as long as you avoid the stuff with added sugar, obviously) or rice or paste or potatoes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Health
It's pro-veganism and the narrator is a goofy manchild, but has credible (to me anyway) medical experts.
It was an eye opener to me how many packaged goods have sugar (HFCS) added, when intuitively it seems there was no good reason for any added sweet flavor to be present. By (mostly) assiduously reading the ingredients (the only source of truth, which is why it is often in the smallest print), I am often able to avoid purchasing rubbish that has no business driving me ever faster to a painful death.
There are some goods that are proudly sugar free (on the marketing speak and in the ingredients list) and I make sure to buy these when possible.
IMO, we need to have a big fat "This is Candy!" label on anything that's got more than 1 gram of sugar/hfcs/whatever per serving. Yes, that includes Apple Juice and other 'hidden' sweeteners.
I think you're attempting to redefine a word to fit your narrative, and I'm not having it.
Peanuts are frequently used as part of a wide range of sweets for texture. But, they are also sweet enough to not be out of place and in no way make them heathy by proxy. Similarly, eating a full serving of penuts regularly is generally a bad idea.
[1] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/531013/the-hacking-...
He gave an example of Japanese and their healthiness, yet they eat way more fructose than the USA citizen he cites. There's a whole other bunch of misinformation in his speech and his studies are filled with flawed design (no control group, p hacking etc.).
I swear every time I'm in a nutrition related thread I see somebody mention his name or a book he wrote or talk he did. I used to be pretty deep into weightlifting and nutrition, and I don't know that I ever once ran into his name in all my reading, and I spent a stupid amount of time reading about macro + micro nutrients.
http://anthonycolpo.com/sweet-stupidity-part-2-the-bitter-tr...
You can check the sources yourself too.
Although, I believe Lustig changed the narrative and is currently promoting diets rich in starch (which means high volume - low calories) and most of his studies produce a caloric deficit (while he denies it despite the fact that less calories are metabolized due to digestion of starch).
I believe he also likes referencing fructose extract consumption studies that have no direct mapping to a real diet. For example, consumping 100g of fructose through fruit won't do you any harm.
Sugar and high fructose corn syrup get added to a ton of foods that don't need extra sweetening. Some varieties of Vlasic dill pickles, for example, have HFCS added. It's insane.
For the past few months I've been trying to avoid added sugar in everything except for some baked goods (like zuchini bread or birthday cake). It took a couple weeks to get used to, but now I prefer food without it and when I try something with added sweetener it tastes too sweet.
But seriously dumping sugar in food, so it actually tastes noticeably sweet? That's just insane.
Source: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mhVolO...
[Google cache, the original PDF is 404 Not Found]
Edit: looks like one can find erythritol for as little as $15, which is still 34 times more than sugar.
That being said: I'm not sure if it's enough to make it cheaper than sugar.
Personally, I'd prefer they just kept the original fat and call it a day as there seems to be absolutely nothing wrong with it health-wise.
Erythritol is actually 70% as sweet as sugar. So you actually need to supplement it with something else to match sugar.
> Doses over 50 grams (1.8 oz) can cause severe diarrhea, plus a significant increase in nausea and stomach rumbling.
I don't know what the weight ratio would be to substitute that for sugar, but a can of soda has ~40g of sugar so I'm guessing you need to be careful with it similar to other sugar alcohols.
... and that's "just" 50 grams.
Processed food isn't engineered and manufacturered to benefit the consumer. It's designed to increase consumption.
What's most troubling is, it seems, plenty of people can't connect the dots between what they consume and their health. It's disheartening that we need a law that says, "You can't look down and see your penis when you pee...watch what you eat." Where do ppl think all that extra weight comes from, sunshine?
It may be absurd, ridiculous, perhaps even criminal or genocidal, but it is certainly within the realm of comprehension:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordi...
We're hard-wired to be attracted to sweet and fatty foods, because those were important back when food was scarce and a calorie surplus was basically unheard of. Now that food is abundant (at least in the developed world) that same hard-wired attraction is a burden that we need to consciously challenge every day.
I'm a big fan of the No S Diet (http://nosdiet.com/ - no affiliation) because it's straight-forward, easy to adhere to and has worked for me. It also doesn't try to sell you anything, it just asks you to cut out added sugars, limit your meals to single servings and to not eat between meals.
My editorial: Thanks Uncle Sam.
Why not just stop sweetening things. When I took my family to the US for three months the children were astonished at how sweet everything was. You can tell that something is wrong when even children complain that things are too sweet to eat.
One reason why that VW scandal was so morally objectionable is that diesel emissions are fairly local pollutants. Skimping on filtering them offloads an extreme negative externality to every person who gets near your customer/product; it's like poisoning a well. And of course, VW sure isn't alone in cutting inconvenient corners for cash.
Lead solder will probably also be up there. Yeah, yeah, ROHS and REACH and whatever, but there are plenty of exemptions and the barrel-scrapers just ignore them anyways.
Example: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.7b01873
I guess that the problem with a lot of these things is that we don't have good (enough?) predictive models for long-term damage.
It's one of those things where I wonder if the plastics really are as safe as claimed, or just "safer than the standard we set (and we didn't set it high, and our way of measuring is flawed)".
You'd think they would say Safe for food up to 200 degrees F or something.
The manufacturing process might not have been completed, the solders etc.
Of course workers installing it must be careful, but it's claimed to be not harmful to people using the building, or to the environment (from run-off). Just don't lick it or let kids play with it.
On principle, I'd rather have flashing that's ok to lick, and safe for kids to play with and cats to sit on, but that's just not an option at this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashing_(weatherproofing)
Not only flashing, but entire roofs can be covered in lead sheeting! https://nl.pinterest.com/pin/381680137144209527/?lp=true
Lead Flashing: Is it Dangerous? http://bestqualityroofingandchimney.blogspot.nl/2015/01/lead...
Are lead roofing and flashings a problem? https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/haz/haz22.htm
Lead roofing and flashings are much more likely to be a health hazard for people working with the materials than for people using the building.
Lead has been used for roofing for centuries and is one of the oldest flashing materials. It is durable and soft enough to be formed into complex shapes. Lead roofing and flashings can last over 200 years. Generally speaking, lead roofing or flashing that is in good shape may safely be left in place.
Lead can be used safely if worker exposure is monitored and lead is handled properly to avoid skin contact, ingestion, and exposure to lead dust and fumes.
Lead Sheet Goes Full Circle: https://elsia.org.uk/sustainability/other-research/
This document sets out to provide a scientifically sound appraisal of the use of lead sheet in construction applications.
Research findings in the document show that lead sheet poses no risk to the environment, even when water run-off is taken into account, and does not present any risk to human beings. Providing simple hygienic precautions are observed people who handle significant quantities of lead do not expose themselves to health risks.
Low environmental impact of lead sheet on buildings
A study conducted in 2005 looked at the environmental impact of lead sheet used in the building industry. With the following conclusions:
There is no risk related to emissions of lead sheet into the environment. These conclusions are still valid even if it is assumed that all building roofs are disconnected from the sewer system and that the runoff enters the environment directly.
Chemical hazards: Lead: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.ns...
Surveys of rainwater from domestic tanks have identified lead contamination as a potential problem. Results have been variable with exceedances of the ADWG health-related guideline value of 10 µg/L (NHMRC & NRMMC 2004) ranging from 0% to 15% of samples collected (SA Health unpublished results 1999-2009; Simmons et al. 2001; Chapman et al. 2006 and 2008; Morrow et al. 2007; Huston et al. 2009; Rodrigo et al. 2009). In addition to these results a survey in Melbourne recorded a particularly high exceedance frequency of 33% (Magyar 2008).
As discussed in other sections the reduction of lead concentrations in paint and the introduction of lead free petrol have decreased the risk from paint and general traffic emissions. However, roof materials and uncoated lead flashing in particular remain a potential source of contamination (Simmons et al. 2001; Chapman et al. 2006; Magyar et al. 2008; Huston et al. 2009), as rainwater tends to be acidic and may mobilise lead, and possibly other metals, into solution. The increasing availability of lead-free or coated lead flashing is expected to reduce future concentrations of lead in rainwater tanks.
Roof catchments used in the collection of rainwater for drinking should not include uncoated lead flashing. Alternative materials should be used in new roofs or when renovating or extending roofs. In existing roofs, painting of uncoated flashing will reduce the risk of contamination. Lead may also enter rainwater from lead washers for roofing screws. These can be replaced with plastic washers.
Leaching of lead into roof run-off may be more of a problem from poorly maintained roofs and gutters, where the process could be increased by the action of water made acidic with organic substances from materials such as leaf litter.
"Worldwide, ambient air pollution contributes to 5.4% of all deaths" source - http://www.who.int/
You can use something like years of life lost instead: http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat2006YearsOfLifeLost.pdf
Today the main reason people drink is to get merry and drunk, and forget about life's problems. The alcohol we drink is (usually) no longer natural, it's processed and refined on an industrial level.
I'm sure everybody knows someone who was an alcoholic and the issues it caused them. On the other hand, it's common knowledge that smoking causes major health issues, yet people still do it...
Secondly, I very much prefer less processed types, such as wine, whisky and unfiltered beer. I stay far far away from alcopops and similar drinks.
It may be anecdotal evidenece, but I get far fewer hangovers now, even if I drink to the same amount as I used to.
I particularly enjoy using my inexpensive carbon steel pan that I got from a local kitchen supply store, I find it even better than an actual cast iron pan. It's made from 3mm plate steel and it's smooth like old-fashioned cast iron pans, so after about a month of regular use, I would honestly call it nonstick. Certainly nonstick enough for eggs or fish.
As an added bonus, it will last basically forever as long as you don't warp it from thermal shock or let it sit while wet, so it rusts. You can take away most other items in my kitchen and I wouldn't be too upset, but don't ever touch my carbon steel pan and wood spatula!
In Europe (especially Italy where I believe Teflon is banned in cookware) ceramic coatings are becoming the standard for non-stick cookware.
I also prefer the ceramic linings, since those are more likely to be OK in my mostly uneducated opinion. (However the type of material is different, and hopefully less likely to leach).
Sugar and Tobacco are probably outliers simply because of the sheer quantity in which humans consume them (or used to, for smokers). That itself increases greatly the chances that they will directly cause some kind of cancers.
Now if in the future, we change our society and progress medical science far enough that we live well past 100 years, that is when we should be worried about dangers from materials that we only occasionally come into contact with. Even then, cancer treatments would probably be a routine thing by then...
I guess my point is that you would more likely die in a car accident than from something we're not aware of just yet.
What's worse is that we've known about the dangers for more than 100 years.
Here in the UK if traces of asbestos are found the entire building is quarantined while a team of workers in hazchem suits and breathing apparatus removes it!
But then, maybe, that's the price we pay for convenience.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-air-poll...
Yet people still hate it.
It tastes bad to the average male, it leaves a bad after taste that is really noticable. Females don't seem to notice the after taste.
Now, for phenylketonurics it's problematic, but they have severe dietary restrictions anyway.
The only problem I'm aware of with aspartame is that consumption of any sweetener is associated with weight gain, possibly due to changes in the brain's association between taste and calorie intake.
https://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/busting-sugar-hyper...
I used to be boy scout. A week long camp typically gets lot more tolerable around day 3. At the same time the kids typically run out of candy and cell phone battery.
I'd say the problem is not high blood sugar from eating too much sugar. The problem is low blood sugar about 30min after eating all that sugar. And kids are great at keeping themselves busy enough, so they don't notice being hungry. But they do get cranky without exception.
And even then the problem is not the candy. It's the fact that they supplement "real food" with candy. And the blood sugar seesaw starts to reverb.
But here we are, needing to consume more energy because we do things (good, bad, useless or wasteful) with our time (and these things aren't directly looking for food.)
The amount of money I'm spending on food jumped by 3x. It seems accurate to say that if you're poor, you're almost forced to eat sugar for economic reasons.
Almost all prepared, packaged, or preserved foods have one of those.
The solution is actually pretty simple: eat meals made from base/raw ingredients only.
Beans, nuts, meats, vegetables, fruits, vegetable oils, spices... Endless varieties of stuff to cook with, combine, and eat alone. People just aren't used to eating this way, because prepackaged crap has been the norm for so long.
You are right that if you're poor, it's difficult to eat this way, though.
> if you're poor, it's difficult to eat this way, though.
And it is difficult for some poor people to eat this way because their cultural poverty exacerbates or even causes their financial poverty. Their parents (if they were lucky enough to have two) didn't teach them to prepare basic meals, sharpen a knife, or care for a frying pan. Each of these skills is a barrier to entry, and they add up quickly for basic meals.
It's not the only major barrier, but I think that we have really pulled the rug out from the poorest by exchanging cultural norms for convenience and a net rise in costs.
I typically avoid buying anything processed, those items rapidly ruin my budget.
processed foods are on average considerably cheaper. Spam, hot dogs, bacon, deli meats, and the list goes on and on.
Where do you shop? I am highly skeptical of your claims.
The biggest thing I would suggest is to avoid canned foods, especially beans. Buy dried beans instead. They don't take that much effort to cook, the only thing is that you need to remember to soak them overnight (and discard the soaking water) before cooking. As an added bonus, dried beans, lentils, chickpeas and so on are inexpensive and widely available.
You could also get a pressure cooker, which is just a good idea in general, and will allow you to cook beans directly in about an hour.
One point he noted was how instantaneous global communication via television (and later the internet) enabled terrorists to hijack global attention:
>Terrorism is an invention through which any two armed people can take over an entire industry, namely television, with the eager cooperation of its owners.
-Matshall McLuhan
Now would be the time do do something about it, not 30-40 years from now.
The high bit is that all studies must be registered in advance and report their data. If you're a researcher, you shouldn't agree to do a study where the results won't be reported if the sponsor doesn't like them.
But it's still "Sugar Crisp" in Canada, where Sugar Bear still says "Can't get enough of that Sugar Crisp"! Do they have better truth in advertising laws there or something?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Crisp
At the 1904 World Fair, the Quaker Oats Company made a candy-coated puffed cereal, a wheat-based product similar to Cracker Jack's candy-coated popcorn. The product concept was re-introduced unsuccessfully in 1939 by another business as Ranger Joe, the first pre-sweetened, candy-coated breakfast cereal. Post Foods introduced their own version in 1948. The Post version was originally called Happy Jax, and was renamed to Sugar Crisp the next year. The name was later changed to Super Sugar Crisp, and in 1985, it was changed again to Super Golden Crisp. Finally, it was changed to Golden Crisp (during a time when many cereals dropped the word "Sugar" from their titles) in the American market.
In the early 1970s, there was a short-lived variation on the original Sugar Crisp, called Super Orange Crisp, which had orange-flavored O's in it.
The product is still sold as Sugar Crisp in Canada. In Canada, the box still displays the Sugar Bear mascot and the phrase "Can't get enough of that Sugar Crisp."
Even most muesli/granola is loaded with sugar, whether cane sugar, honey, or dried fruit.
The corn flakes I usually eat for breakfast have basically 0 nutritional value, I think the entire 1kg box contains about 800kJ, no sugar and the rest of that is then mostly air or filler.
And, despite what you might have read in the press, it's nowhere near a consensus that sugar is the primary cause of being overweight. You really think a 50-year-old study is the smoking gun that's going to usher in a consensus among nutrition scientists everywhere?
Personally, I buy Stephen Guyenet's theory that palatability is the driver of overweight. I think it's increasing palatability and falling food costs.
Beyond that, the take away is yet again: If it's a shortcut or if it's delicious, it's bad for you. (gazes longingly at holiday cookies on desk)
I've been trying to live by the No S Diet for a while, and it seems to be working for me, I highly recommend it.
It's not surprising that after we made fat the demon, the supply change replaced fat with with sugar (at least in yogurts) and type 2 diabetes is now rampant.
:-)
Defenetly feels like carbohydrates/sugar is poison.
Not saying that keto doesn't work or doesn't have unique aspect to it, but at the end of the day, to me it seems that 80% of it is just calories in, calories out. Then 20% about making it easier to actually stick to that. And the remaining 98% is all hype.
Stick to what you know because nutrition is not it.
Because?
It is possibly fine to be in ketosis for a little while (and it can serve a medical purpose), but you should absolutely not keep it up long-term.
As with all crash diets where a lot of weight is lost rapidly, the weight is very likely to pile back on when the diet is over.
The lack of research is concerning. I'm refraining from staying on the diet for too long and am opting to cycle in and out of it by re-introducing carbs periodically.
They're supposedly easy to recognize as they're in the E95? and E96? range. Unfortunately the fear for E-numbers has caused manufacturers to stop mentioning them and instead naming the ingredients again.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number#E900.E2.80.93E999_.28...
Sugar? Hmm I didn’t know there’s much sugar in sausages. I mostly eat family made sausages and I don’t think there’s much sugar.
Sugar routinely gets added to a lot of foodstuffs you wouldn't expect it in. But if you're primarily eating home-made sausages, you're probably not going to have any issues, they're mostly in processed and ready-made foods.
there is the stereotype, that hackers/IT guys are in general fat/unhealthy.
But in my experience, this is not at all true. It might just be my circles of people (mostly germans around 30), but most of the IT guys I know, take good care of their body, eat healthy and do all kinds of sports. Even though some are now starting to get lazy, the overall picture for me is, that most are healthy, above average (compared to people of their age).
So I am curious, how the world is for other people here on HN?
edit: and I believe every fat person, knows and knew, that being fat is bad, but when you are sad and eating is your allmost only joy, what can you do? Starving and give up that little bit of happiness?
Maybe I'm a good example, because I used to be rather overweight (125+kg) and inactive. After I started working in IT, I've slimmed down to below 100kg and I've been doing crossfit for ~5 years.
Some other day I've heard the news they were sponsoring research that fat makes you fat.
Capitalism baby - profit for shareholders - we need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line so that it is legally OK not to harm people.
A Medicine degree shouldn't be necessary in order to eat well.
Any reliable source where I can learn the 'nutritional 101' in layman terms?
Saw it on Netflix. Thought I saw it on youtube also for free, but can't seem to find the video.
It took almost 40 years to prove that smoking causes lung cancer.
Similarly, despite unambiguous scientific evidence, it still seems acceptable to deny that man-made CO2 release into the atmosphere causes global warming.
There's actually a good book covering these two instances and others: "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming"
- Upton Sinclair
Yep, and the Sugar Industry used the same tactics as Big Tobacco. They cleverly paid 'Researchers' to conclude that 'There's just not enough evidence, so more evidence is needed' and kept kicking the can down the road. They also did a media blitz campaign to discredit the real scientists who proved the tobacco links / sugar links to cancer.[1]
[1] Source: http://sugarcoateddoc.com
Tobacco was the core of many states' economies, and still remains a massive industry which makes many people wealthy.
Dealing with CO2 emissions would have required dealing with fossil fuel use... and that's tons of money and power in play there.
Sugar is, at the very least, another substance people crave, and has been making people rich for hundreds of years.
Delaying tactics are feasible when you have billions or trillions of dollars, control regulatory bodies, own politicians, scientists, and armies of lawyers. Delaying tactics on the orders of just a few decades means generations of VP's and C-levels getting unfathomably rich, as well as key shareholders. So... fuck the harm, delay, delay, delay.
The key is that you have to not give a shit about anyone other than yourself, or be genuinely deluded.
This is actually quite difficult. Despite its shortcomings (and perhaps ironically) religion can be effective at convincing people to put others first but I would say the default behavior in most people is "I only care about myself and family first". This default behavior is exacerbated when people follow the influence of greed, lust, etc.
The result is basically training people to be susceptible to propaganda.
- oil based energy now wrecking havoc
- "science" based nutrition
- free market
- communication technology
I'm listing the dark parts but there's something odd in the way we probably all swallowed the pill with such a big grin for so long and now pop, lies lies lies; also you're dying because of stupid practices fueled by greedy scammers.
- oil-based energy powered our global economy that was able to research alternative forms of energy
- both nutrition and science have always been an unfinished work, "we don't know everything" != "we know nothing"
- free markets, for their faults, are still better than any other base system we've come up with
- communications technology, I'd hazard we're still grasping with the repurcussions of this re: democracy and many other pre-existing systems. But the fact that I read about the Rohingya genocide by Myanmar again on the front page of the BBC this morning would indicate it has its advantages to the world too
Check this: http://archdruidmirror.blogspot.gr/2017/06/a-field-guide-to-...
http://archdruidmirror.blogspot.gr/2017/06/renewables-next-f...
When we say sugar, do we JUST mean refined, processed, isolated sugars of the likes of candy bars, sodas, etc?
Or do we mean carbohydrates in general, which are broken down by enzymes in our saliva (amylase) into sugars?
If the latter then can we conclude carbohydrates in general are cancer causing? I'm no biologist, or medical professional, so this all gets really confusing when you start thinking beyond the simple "sugar is bad" assertion.
http://www.sugarstacks.com/carrots.htm
So when people say they're on a sugar-free diet, I interpret that to mean they are avoiding refined sugars.
"The glycemic index is a value assigned to foods based on how slowly or how quickly those foods cause increases in blood glucose levels" [1]
Coca Cola® (63) vs Carrots (39). Higher is worse.
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glyce...
If you were making your own baked chicken nuggets or pizza from quality ingredients then they are definitely healthier than potatoes or white rice, assuming the calorie intake was the same.
This is counter-intuitive to most people because of all the misinformation around the benefits of a low-fat diet [1].
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945404-the-obesity-cod...
Which is why I don't see why they would bother to suppress a result like this, but I guess the public interpretation would likely be the outrageous "specifically refined table sugar gives you cancer", so I can't exactly blame 'em for wanting to.
How many Americans are obese because they eat too many fruits and vegetables? An overwhelming majority are obese due to fast foods, soda, snacks, and sweets... costing taxpayers millions of dollars while companies profit from the negative externality.
I could easily drink 2 cans of pop, but could not eat 4 apples.
The food mafia won't like this though so they'll lobby for laws to avoid it.
As a consumer, I try to think about the ingredients of a product: if it is mostly chemicals (in contrast do agricultural products), then the product probably isn't healthy.
The "chemicals are bad!" scare has gotten completely out of hand.
Why is it always "personal responsibility", but never "corporate responsibility"?
How do you mean? My understanding is that it would affect insurance rates for the overweight, unless of course insurers are not allowed to set rates based on bodyfat guidelines? I'd accept that it's costly here in Canada though, definitely an increase in emergency medical service load.
Additionally, when uninsured people visit the emergency room and can't pay for the service, the ER is not allowed to turn them away, and the rest of us end up paying for it.
Pineapple is about 6% sucrose, red delicious Apples are about 2% sucrose (the rest being mostly fructose, and some glucose), bananas have more than 5% sucrose (As do mangoes, nectarines, and varieties of apple like pink lady).
Modern strains of fruits and vegetables. They are all artificial breeds.