Sugar is bad and so are sweeteners. The question is, what is the least worst option? Maybe that is to cut sweet things out of our diet completely.
I'm not sure that scaling is an option outside of GM crops - I can't imagine that it's being synthesised.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to take it regularly though. I never would have considered it as a tool to reduce sugar intake, I can imagine it working for some, though.
For reference: https://www.smallponybarrelworks.com/products/miraculous-pri...
The problem with sugar isn't consuming it, but rather consuming it all the time. And of course I mean excessive sugar, not the 4 grams that are in every 100 grams of bread.
A more reasonable explanation is that the comment that triggered this discussion was just from someone who used the wrong word by accident or totally misunderstands what carbs are.
Anyway now I have changed the subject here is an example
13g of sugar is absurd and is not normal bread in the US.
Even Bimbo, the poster child for "cheap nutrition-less imitation bread" caps out at 4g
It ranges from 3-10 grams iirc. Maybe even higher.
Let people get unhealthy food, that's not what we need to focus on, we need to focus on proper and correct labels on food so people can make an informed decision.
First cheap looking bread I found at Wallmart at $1.32, just over 4g sugar/100g
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-White-Sandwich-Bread-...
Another one, but with honey added, 8g sugar/100g
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Nature-s-Own-Honey-Wheat-Sandwich...
The closest I found was Cinnamon Bread, with 15.7g sugar/100g, which is expected as it's basically a dessert (though oddly, they list all of the sugar as added sugar ! What are those raisins made of??)
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Cinnabon-Cinnamon-Bread-Bakery-In...
Here's a Dutch raisin bread with 23.2 g:
https://www.jumbo.com/producten/goudeerlijk-rozijnenbrood-ha...
You won't find many families with Cinnabon as their bread provider.
The problem is that most stuff you can buy is so full of sugar that it tastes horrible if you only eat it once a week.
Try it, because it'll make everything taste wonderful. All other flavors come out when you have a lower sugar tolerance.
Wonder bread isn't bread, plus if you have gut flora issues with gluten, leave the dough in fridge for a week to ferment and then bake that up with some olive oil brushed on-top and some nice big salt chunks.
I got into it because my son is severely autistic and the store bought stuff additives drive him crazy.
We tracked it down to mostly soy products that he had a reaction to and then it translated into organics and home made everything.
Honestly I don't miss any of the bad food and just can't buy the garbage any more
That's how I feel about 99% of stuff in grocery stores now. I barely buy anything but fresh and frozen veg, meat, dairy and coffee :)
The inflationary pressure did not effect the price of organics from our side.
Flour, chicken and pork organics have stayed basically the same price over the last few years.
The premium on organics appears to be closing due to the lower fuel/transport costs not really changing much for them and already having a premium built in.
It's an example of shorter supply chain migration I did not expect.
You’re better off limiting carbohydrates in general than just refined sugar.
Eat fruit, where sugar comes with fiber and vitamins/minerals and you will be fine (you are biologically a primate and they binge on fruit -- fruit and thereby sugar should thus be fine as our main source of calories).
One note to add: primates do not eat fatty foods and humans do. In the presence of fat, we cannot handle sugar (and thus fruit) very well and may lead to type2.
Which is not to say that eating fruit is bad for you.
Sure we've cultivated sweet fruits that work in colder climates (apples and pears come to mind).
It was something I discovered by doing thruhikes, eating the most protein and calorie dense light foods on the shelf of whatever tiny town I hitchhiked into and drinking fresh spring water every day. Now soda tastes terrible to me compared to ice cold spring water with balanced minerals and I can appreciate the texture and earthy flavor of unflavored and unsalted lentils.
I've concluded personally that it's still probably the best option - a teaspoon here and there, even daily, probably won't do much if it's near or in a meal. You know what you're getting: simple sugars have been part of the human diet for milennia, and we understand their metabolism reasonably well.
People who use the alternatives are making a much riskier bet on the null hypothesis of future research.
The stuff you put in your tea is super concentrated compared to the natural form, though. It takes like 50 kilos of raw sugar cane to make a kilo of table sugar, using an intensive industrial process.
There is no magic but,most of what we eat in the west is shit
Find a local Farmer, buy meat, vegetables, and dairy from them.
Not only will you have great quality products straight from the source, but the farmer will get good profit too. Also, the food is so much better for you than the processed shit that you find in most supermarkets nowadays.
Local food, and local people is so much better for all the things.
Milk is not just food but most likely a genetic transfection system activating mTORC1 signaling for postnatal growth https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23883112/
Milk drinkers are inserting bovine RNA into their cells (unless it is heavily fermented or UHT)
> Milk is rich in miRNAs that appear to play important roles in the postnatal development of all mammals.
https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10...
> There is compelling evidence that human and bovine milk exosomes play a crucial role for adequate metabolic and immunological programming of the newborn infant at the beginning of extrauterine life. Milk exosomes assist in executing an anabolic, growth-promoting and immunological program confined to the postnatal period in all mammals. However, epidemiological and translational evidence presented in this review indicates that continuous exposure of humans to exosomes of pasteurized milk may confer a substantial risk for the development of chronic diseases of civilization including obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis, common cancers (prostate, breast, liver, B-cells) as well as Parkinson's disease. Exosomes of pasteurized milk may represent new pathogens that should not reach the human food chain.
The whole "calcium" argument is also totally debunked.
Everything is unhealthy if you look hard enough, before looking at dairy I'd look at sodas, sugar/carbs in everything, &c.
Or just go for a walk down the street or in an hospital
Contextualized one way, milk is a meal replacement or nutrition supplement, and one that is more practical than most other options. A serving of whole milk requires zero on-site prep time, is relatively portable once packaged, and perhaps more importantly, it is often the most palatable option for picky eaters. Public health is complicated.
Did you read I wrote "modern diet". Those are not the typical HN reading crowd.
Also: you could give them leafy greens can lentils to achieve the same.
Sure the benefits of the dairy nutrition may outweigh the problems of the intolerance.
Exactly. Same goes for other common allergies options like legumes, seafood, and gluten. That's why you provide options.
- 70% obesite/overweight rate
- 20% of kids are obese before hitting 18
- The 2 leading causes of deaths are lifestyle related, with diet being a big part of both
Every single study and scientist you will find will tell you our diet is dog shit, they'll tell you we eat too much sugar, too many carbs, too much salt, too much processed food
People discussing if artificial sweeteners are better or worse than sugar are like drug addicts discussing if heroin is less worse than fentanyl
Just cut that shit out of your life, there are no drawbacks and an infinite amount of benefits. They're not necessary, they're not needed, you're just addicted to them. We see the results, we have the stats, the science tells us why, we know. I don't get how anyone can argue the opposite, we eat shit, the vast majority of things sold in supermarket is shit, most people eat shit and they visibly suffer from it
Plenty of people at that time were either:
Starving or near starvation.
Eating a profoundly limited diet for much of the year, relying heavily on salting, drying, pickling - freezers didn't exist for most people, food imports were brutally expensive and too slow anyway for short-life fresh produce.
Eating food contaminated with all sorts of garbage (sawdust in bread..) as food safety inspection and enforcement was only starting to become a thing.
Eating offal. So much offal. Roasting a whole chicken was a few times a year treat for my mother's family, middle income, UK, 1940s/50s. "A chicken in every pot" was a US campaign slogan circa 1930 - before factory farming, lean meat was unaffordable for many. People on upper middle class incomes in well-connected parts of the world had it pretty good by the 1920s, but the average citizen, not so much.
Tripe, cow tongues, kidneys, trotters, chicken feet, lungs, brains? Know they're big in some cultures, but no thanks.
I've tried chicken feet once... and to my great shame, I almost vomited all over the table! Using my teeth to scrape gelatinous skin off a chicken toe provides a visceral reaction :(
I guess we all have our food red lines!
So depending on where you are, not much [0]
Or a lot of what we would now shy away from, if you had the means [1]. And probably wine at lunch, a lot of alcohol and tobacco otherwise, and some other funny gummy stuff to chew if you fancied that.
My point is, we're probably looking at the past with way too rosy glasses, regular people ate a lot of junk as well. If they could afford to.
[0] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/famine/
[1] https://i.pinimg.com/736x/67/f6/25/67f6253ac36145bf9d0b392af...
The fiber requirement today is supposed to be 23 g of fiber, maybe 24.. the average American eats maybe 20 grams of fiber a day..
Also, I'd love for the "more fiber" proponents to have talks with the "only eat meat" proponents.
Not all prehistoric men. The Inuit around the world have a very low fiber diet and the difference is reveled in their genetics.
https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186...
It would be best to know your genetics before jumping any dietary bandwangon.
I have Sami heritage and I cannot eat a high fiber or anything close to a southern world high vegetable diet.
The bottom line is: if you couldn't grow it/make it/process it a hundred years ago you most likely don't want to ingest that every day
If what you eat contain 50 ingredients, 45 of which you can't identify, and you couldn't make it yourself at home with basic ingredients and utensils it most likely isn't any good for you
> regular people ate a lot of junk as well. If they could afford to.
20% of the population is obese before hitting adulthood, 70% of americans are obese or overweight, the leading cause of death is cardiovascular disease, lifestyle related cancer show no sign of decline quite the opposite, &c.
We came a long way, we now know what kill us, people don't die of starvation, but they still die of malnutrition. There is a systemic, world wide issue with food, a very very bad one
You probably have a very specific image of what people ate a century ago, but I wouldn't expect that you assumed rice, beans and fish, with as much fat as affordable. For better or worse, there's little "you know what I mean" culture common ground on HN I think.
> The bottom line is: if you couldn't grow it/make it/process it a hundred years ago you most likely don't want to ingest that every day
That's kind of an amish approach to food. I'd prefer to benefit from better food than a century ago (we have a ton of better crops, better processed products, tastier varieties etc .), but at least it's a pretty clear position you have.
Why not go back nearly two thousand years then? Let's eat like Roman aristocrats!
Moderns food is pretty good. Just keep your diet varied and sane.
Normal sugar in moderation with large time periods between calories.
> multiple lines of evidence indicate that elevated erythritol levels can directly contribute to heightened platelet reactivity and thrombosis risk by enhancing platelet intracellular calcium release and aggregation in response to multiple agonists. Specifically, the use of a preclinical in vivo thrombosis model similarly indicates higher rates of clot formation and increased thrombosis potential following arterial injury when plasma erythritol levels are elevated. Our findings suggest the need for further safety studies examining the long-term effects of artificial sweeteners in general, and erythritol specifically, on risks for heart attack and stroke, particularly in patients at higher risk for CVD.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02223-9.epdf?shar...