Yeah, well modern diets also have a wildly imbalanced omega 3-6 ratio, which causes chronic inflammation which in turn is a central driver of diabetes. Funny how they just disregard it and try to pinpoint everything to a single variable.
but it’s a reality for a lot of young men.
Long story short, bulking up is at odds with ecology, and we ask youngsters to do both.
How so? I would think that better nutrition and more physical activity is not at odds with being environmentally conscious, quite the contrary.
> Environmental changes came about. Processed foods became mainstream.
Those are definitely true, but those happened over time. The lifting of the sugar restrictions happened immediately at one date, and what is interesting is that you see such vastly, statistically significant differences in later diabetes and hypertension rates in babies that were born so close together (within a couple years), the main difference being their amount of sugar intake in very early childhood.
It's not like they just looked at "pre-war" vs. "post-war" babies.
Nobody is arguing that it isn't or couldn't. The study does a pretty good job, IMO, of pinpointing sugar intake as an infant as having substantial, significant impact on diabetes and hypertension rates in adulthood. It is not saying that it is the only possible causal factor.
Actually, the only people I have seen claiming this are conspiracy theorists who jumped on a new boogeyman.
Edit: it doesn't need much to be smarter than you, waihtis
Most studies rely on self-reported data, and people aren't very reliable in confessing what they ate and in what quantity. We are also a long-lived species and many effects take decades to manifest. Differences in environment (e.g. water impurities), genetics and gut microbiome confound the issue further.