And for Reference on his great ideas :
> In December 2018, he changed the nutrition standards for school lunches to allow more refined grains, allow milk with added sugar, and increased sodium.
His positions are available to the public, and they don't prioritize the health of the American public.
His bias would lean towards less regulations, which is a position, fine, but when you're responsible on a federal level, that should benefit all Americans, not just Companies. But thats my 2 cents.
• Vegetables of all types—dark green; red and orange; beans, peas, and lentils; starchy; and other vegetables
• Fruits, especially whole fruit
• Grains, at least half of which are whole grain
• Dairy, including fat-free or low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese, and/or lactose-free versions and fortified soy beverages and yogurt as alternatives
• Protein foods, including lean meats, poultry, and eggs; seafood; beans, peas, and lentils; and nuts, seeds, and soy products
• Oils, including vegetable oils and oils in food, such as seafood and nuts
Don’t eat these:
• Added sugars—Less than 10 percent of calories per day starting at age 2. Avoid foods and beverages with added sugars for those younger than age 2.
• Saturated fat—Less than 10 percent of calories per day starting at age 2.
• Sodium—Less than 2,300 milligrams per day—and even less for children younger than age 14.
• Alcoholic beverages—Adults of legal drinking age can choose not to drink, or to drink in moderation by limiting intake to 2 drinks or less in a day for men and 1 drink or less in a day for women, when alcohol is consumed. Drinking less is better for health than drinking more. There are some adults who should not drink alcohol, such as women who are pregnant.
"The federal government on Tuesday issued new dietary guidelines that keep current allowances for sugar and alcohol consumption unchanged, rejecting recommendations by its scientific advisory committee to make significant cuts.
The scientific committee, which was composed of 20 academics and doctors, had recommended cutting the limit for added sugars in the diet to 6% of daily calories from 10% in the current guidelines, citing rising rates of obesity and the link between obesity and health problems like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer."
And high cholesterol isn't necessarily harmful. I've had it for 20+years. I've also had calcium-scoring tests showing no buildup in my coronary arteries.
Also, differentiate HDL from LDL...
I think it's healthiest to regard these guidelines as an advertisement from the most effective lobbyists of the food industry, cloaked as a scientific analysis from an agency that wasn't so much captured by that industry, as conceived and built by it from the start.
That doesn't mean it's all wrong, just that the right parts are those that accidentally coincide with dominant industry interests.
Advice to cut sugar and alcohol consumption would go against the lobbyists for the most powerful industries, right?
I think the parts that are right are not those that coincide with industry interests but those that go against industry interests. Those parts are probably directionally correct but have softened language due to lobbying.
Yes, the food industry doesn't exist in a vacuum and they are painfully aware of that. They routinely compromise and tailor their advertising message for the zeitgeist. I think this mild improvement is an example.
Where I live in the US, being a teetotaler is weirder than be a black Jewish, Chinese person. The latter can be understood and interesting to many. The former means "you're not with it and you must be an asshole."
The problem is that we don't really know what dietary guidelines should be. Whether industry lobbying is involved or not doesn't really change that nutrition isn't something we've figured out. Going by "gut feel" will probably provide similar or better results.
The refused recommendation is "lowering the limit for alcoholic beverages for men to one drink per day from two, matching the guidance for women". With sugar, they left 10% of calories intake refusing to change it to 6% od calories intake.
Hardly an outrage that recommended make alcohol consumption stayed the same instead of being the same as female one. I am quite feminist and still ... like ... admit that average malé body and female body are not perfectly equal when it comes to alcohol.
Though I'm always suspicious of why those limits aren't simply zero.
I'm not sure who out there is done a favor by being told that some alcohol and added sugar is fine when a better mindset is to be aware that it's pure indulgence that has nothing to do with nutrition.
To me it's like lowering the daily fiber recommendation just to make people feel better about constantly undershooting it.
That sugar intake would be realistic if the FDA could say 0 added sugars in I dunno...every single bread product? Even healthy 12 grain bread SERVING has about 5g of added sugar. 15g is about 1 tablespoon so in total a half loaf can have up to several tablespoons. And that's on the good end!
These guidelines always sound like hopes and dreams in the US. Companies just pump their foods with sugar to bump up calories or make it taste better. You can only get such minimal sugar in your diet if you exclusively go on keto-like diet.
If you cut sugar out of your diet, you end up eating a lot of vegetables. A lot. I also make a lot of my own sauces; it’s annoying, but they taste better, anyways. Dried pasta & beans don’t have added sugar. If you stick to butcher meat (chickens, turkey, beef), they don’t add sugar to those. However, it is very much a diet that requires time.
I've been an advocate of mostly paleo, most of the time for a long while, and keto for those with diabetes. Of course, a lot of it will come down to making more, and buying less. Where it's exceedingly hard to overcome convenience of buying something ready made, let alone over-consumption or lack of physical activity.
Truck driver here, with Type 2 diabetes; metformin pills, no insulin. Trulicity recently because of high blood glucose; also acts as an appetite suppressant for some people.
Most truck drivers in the US take a physical and get a two year medical card. Diabetics that demonstrate blood glucose control get one year.
At my last physical my blood glucose was way out of control (my bad), and they gave me a three month card and "come back way better than this in three months."
I then ate mostly meat, cheese, plain greek yogurt, and protein bars (17g carbs) and protein shakes (5g). Pre-sliced apples and frozen vegetables. Minimal cheating, confessed in my diary. Most of my shopping is Walmart, because you can park a truck up in there.
In regular consultation with a nutritionist in my doctor's office (I send her my weekly carb and blood glucose diary), I generally eat anywhere from 40 to 80 grams of carbs, according to labels, or Wolfram Alpha when needed. Occasionally low hundreds.
Not quite keto, but low and mostly disciplined. Minimal exercise.
My glucose readings went from high 300s (like I said, out of control) to 90s and low hundreds. My nutritionist saw a few low 80s in my diary and warned me that 80 is moving into "low blood glucose."
Aaannd ... I've lost 30 pounds; 220 to 190, at 5'11". That was an absolute and unanticipated side effect.
The other main diabetic measure is A1C, which requires a blood draw. Last recent physical was 14, double what's reasonable. It's a 3 month average, so it won't be where I want it to be after 3 months, but I expect enough improvement to regain my one year medical card.
All this (and the "minimal exercise" comment) to say "low carbs good, added sugar and processed grain really bad."
As a trucker, almost everything I eat comes in a package, and is cooked in my microwave or eaten directly out of my little refrigerator. I read the labels, and put it back if there's added sugar, or enough carbs that that one meal would dominate my carb budget. I eat oatmeal (with water, not milk, my preference) almost every morning, steel cut and out of the round cardboard container, not flavored floor sweepings in envelopes.
Read the labels. And if you're diabetic, stick your fingers every day, even if you don't use insulin. If you don't read your blood glucose regularly, you could be lying to yourself.
Just a minor tip, a lot of fast food places will sell the pieces of meat cooked for less than the burger, minus the bun. When road tripping, I'd often hit a fast food place, get a couple meat patties and a side salad or two.
You're right on regular monitoring even without taking in carbs, depending on your metabolism, you can still get crazy high readings on almost no carbs in the diet... Took me 6 months of no carbs and had to still take insulin on occassion to keep it controlled.
Thanks. I've seen people order "and no bun." I want to get in and out, so i just order the quarter pounder and throw away the bun.
Wolfram Alpha tells me a quarter pounder is 42g carbs, and it also tells me that the bun is 23g. So the quarter pounder that I just ate goes in my diary as 19g carbs, and the bun goes in the trash.
A fair amount of what is left is in the cheese and ketchup btw. What really surprised me is the amount of sugar in salad dressing... I will usually use a ranch dip cup (or two, much lower carb count) for my salads.
They’re suggesting that one drink a day for men is better than two? In my experience, it’s the people drinking 12+ in one sitting or 30+ units in a week who are having the health issues.
Feels like suggesting lowering the speed limit to 55mph because it causes fewer deaths than 65mph. Just makes people skeptical of government overreach.
Research suggests that drinking an occasional glass of red wine is good for you. It provides antioxidants, may promote longevity, and can help protect against heart disease and harmful inflammation, among other benefits.
I remember once reading there are two kinds of people who live the longest: the ones who never ever drink alcohol, and the ones who have a drink every day.
The ones like me, who don't drink every day, but then get wasted one weekend, are the most negatively affected by alcohol.
Epidemiological studies of alcohol have one incredibly large problem, as both recovering alcoholics and teetotalers report no alcohol consumption.
There's some evidence that the beneficial impact of alcohol comes from the comparison between people who have one drink a day (relatively healthy) and recovering alcoholics (typically extremely unhealthy).
True, but that research also shows that the negative impact is dose dependent in a very non-linear fashion. The information I would hope to get out of such guidelines is at what level the risk curve starts to bend upwards rather more steeply.
People regularly drinking 12 beers in a sitting are unlikely to change their behavior because some government eggheads wrote a paper saying it wasn't healthy. I suspect they already know that and just judge that they'd rather do that anyway.
People somewhat regularly having 3 beers might be convinced to only have 2 or 2 down to only 1.
I mean is it government overreach to recommend a healthier lifestyle? It would be government overreach if they mandated a limit or some kind of mechanism. If anything this is a soft recommendation on how to live a healthier life. Hardly government overreach.
There is no scientific evidence that publishing US federal government dietary guidelines has ever done anything to improve public health. This is a total boondoggle and waste of taxpayer money. The FDA and Congress should cancel the entire program.
Dear god... have people read the packages on food they feed kids at school?
I counted 120 grams of added sugar a day in the school lunch of my son. Non-fat chocolate milk and sugar laden starches. Juice counts as a serving of fruit (and our pediatrician didn’t see a problem with that)
But hey... they’ve got a bag of 4 carrots so that will balance it out right?
To be fair, in the specific case of tomatoes, the more it's cooked/reduced, the more bioavailable many of its nutrients are. Tomato paste is just tomatoes. Usually these kinds of pizzas have tons of sugar in the sauce, though.
It never dawned on me as a child, but a couple things jump out at me now as to what I was fed in elementary school.
1. Your drink choice was milk or chocolate milk. Both had artificial sweeteners. Apparently, we had no lactose intolerant kids in the whole school.
2. We were fed lots of bread and potatoes. Even the main dish was often pizza or similar, which contains bread.
3. Green vegetables were exceedingly rare.
4. A kid in Kindergarten and a 6th grader got the same lunch.
In retrospect my lunch diet was atrocious due to this as a kid. You don't need to feed kids sweetened crap all the time. It's especially hard to justify given that all the public schools had complete kitchens that were used every day.
Basically, public school was just state sponsored day care where I grew up. Not only that, it was awful quality day care.
My mother worked in school food service and used dietary guidelines to help implement salad bars at a number of schools. Your results obviously differ and you should address the issue since it brings you so much concern.
These dietary guidelines are not published by the FDA, whose goal is to protect public health, but by the USDA, whose goal is to protect farmers.
Compare their "about us" pages:
FDA:
"The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices; and by ensuring the safety of our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation."
USDA:
"We have a vision to provide economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve our Nation's natural resources through conservation, restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands."
The problem in this case is actually the USDA, whose mission has always been to promote and safeguard the interests of suppliers: livestock and farm. This mission is directly in conflict with human health, consumer interests, and animal welfare.
It's another government agency that does not serve the greater good.
I have worked as a contract employee at both the FDA and the US Dept of Agriculture. Rule 1: Trust neither. The DofA wants you to eat dairy, meat, and grain products - thats their area of expertise. The FDA ... want you to buy drugs. Thats their business. Neither is objective, and both use "science" that suits their needs.
You may not remember VIOXX. I was working at FDA when this scandal broke. Politics and money got this drug approved. A whistleblower got it exposed.
A workflow system I worked on there was had features designed to hide information from certain doctors/researchers.
I can agree that corruption exists at the FDA (and every other organization). I don't agree that it has been completely useless or even had a net negative effect for the quality of life for most Americans.
More transparency would be nice, more data from more frequent experiments would be nice. But the point is, they are using scientific principles (over the long term, I can't say for specific administrations).
Too profitable, obviously. We can argue about carbohydrates endlessly, and I have to no avail in the past, but there is no dietary need for sugar at all. We tolerate some of it, but the less of it you eat the better off your body will be.
On a related note, the alcohol industry is actually really shady. They like to put on a clean image of providing responsible adults entertainment, but in reality the industry is deeply dependent on alcoholics. It’s estimated (2007 numbers) that just over 10% of alcohol drinkers consume half of the alcohol in the United States. Without that small cohort of alcoholics, a large percentage of the industry would go broke. Ever since learning this fact, I’ve taken an extra skeptical eye towards anything that even vaguely looks like alcohol industry influence.
Lots of industries like that. Look up gun ownership numbers.
Another strange food is dairy. In fact, I think that most Europeans were lactose-intolerant, until they started getting people from Asia mixing in genes.
There was a study, to that effect, recently; where they looked at old DNA samples.
I remember the Masai tribe, in Africa. These are some of the most robust, healthy people you have ever seen, and their traditional food is cow's milk, mixed with cow's blood. YUM.
But I loves my sugar and milk in my tea (don't drink booze, though).
The difference is between companies depending on collectors or aficionados, and companies depending on addicts. Assuming that one doesn’t have issues with firearm ownership in general, then there doesn’t seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with someone collecting a large number of firearms. You might find it odd, but there doesn’t seem to be a social level difference between someone owning a handgun and someone collecting them. (Correct me if someone can show a link between number of guns owned and violence).
There is a major difference between someone averaging a drink every other day or so, and someone having 10 drinks a day. The latter group is unquestionably addicted, with extremely negative personal and social consequences for that addiction.
Re the gun ownership issue, roughly 40% of US households ADMIT to having guns. There is a significant amount that will NEVER answer that question on any survey. Much like those that admit to owning them will rarely tell you specifics like how many they have.
The smart ones actually lie and say no they don't have guns. Refusing to answer will get you binned as a gun owner just like refusing to disclose race on a work or college application will get you binned as White. And in both cases those answers will likely get flagged as uncooperative too.
> Another strange food is dairy. In fact, I think that most Europeans were lactose-intolerant, until they started getting people from Asia mixing in genes.
I think it's the other way around, but i claim no expertise.
> in reality the industry is deeply dependent on alcoholics.
What business wouldn't adapt to the fact that their customers' purchases follow a Pareto distribution? Many (most?) do. I'm not saying that they're not shady, but this isn't evidence of that.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but there's plenty of evidence that they depend on these consumers, and they are certainly aware of them because alcohol companies have been known to engage in marketing activities. This is a broad overview:
As you say, it is completely predictable that beverage companies would adapt to a Pareto-like distribution of consumption. However, unlike for things like books or outdoor equipment, adapting to a Pareto distribution here means that a company is intentionally profiting from addiction. This is an absolutely huge negative externality in terms of the social , health, and economic harm that alcohol addiction causes.
I'm sure they would, but a business is not going to willing shrink its market unless is forced to.
Trying to maintain your market, while giving all sorts of people liver cancer, cirrhosis, fetal alcohol syndrom, et al, is probably considered shady by most people.
It’s not shady that an industry is doing the best thing for their own interest. It’s shady that the alcohol industry’s best interest is against many strong public health concerns.
If alcoholics drink half the alcohol, by volume, it may still be a lot less than half the revenue, let alone half the profit. But hard to guess... I wonder what proportion of alcohol sold is (say) more than twice the price of the cheapest stuff (of the same broad category)?
Ancedotal experience the 2 alcoholics I know and have hung out with in the under 35 age group drank the cheapest of the cheap. 1 a 30 pack of natty light a day, the other a bottle of drive thru tequila 20% abv a night. The tequila drinker was clearing 70k a year as a nurse living at his mom's in small town midwest so he could have afforded finer spirits
The liver will start to adapt by performing gluconeogenesis from fat, which has plenty of calories (almost 2x as much per gram as carbohydrates). A human can easily thrive on just fats and protein. See Inuit people who have lived on mostly blubber and meat for centuries.
Your body can get energy/calories from carbohydrates, fat or protein. Whatever is available. You absolutely need proteins. Between fat and carbohydrates, the body can compensate. There is a clear limit on the ability to process carbohydrates.
Minor nit: essential fatty acids must come from diet as they cannot be synthesized directly. These are alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid, with docosahexaenoic acid and gamma-linolenic acid as conditionally essential under some conditions. Though required quantities are minute.
The ‘everything is sugar’ meme really frustrates the conversation about nutrition and does lead to people making bad nutrition choices, as I’ve personally observed IRL.
Fat and protein. Humans have several metabolic pathways to convert these into energy, including the production of ketone bodies and gluconeogensis. These are the same metabolic pathways that allow humans to survive off of body fat during a fast. Without these pathways we would literally die within a day or two of not eating[0], since we’re incapable of storing large amounts of glucose from carbohydrates[1].
One can argue that you might be healthier in the long run with carbohydrates, I’m inclined to disagree, but to argue that you can’t get energy without them is just objectively incorrect.
0 - There is a tiny percentage (10 cases) of the population with the inability to build up body fat thanks to the Mardanoid-progeroid-lipodystrophy syndrome. Those with the syndrome can’t store excess calories in the form of body fat, and must eat continuous small meals to meet their metabolic needs. Curiously it seems like the lack of body fat makes their metabolism incredibly inefficient, as they are reported to average 5,000 to 8,000 calories a day. I presume this is because every calorie they eat is “use it or lose it”, resulting in a lot of waste.
1 - Humans can store some glucose in their liver and muscles for immediate use. But strenuous activity can easily exhaust this supply, so it’s not a reasonable source of energy for even moderate fasts.
1. Sugar = usually means sucrose, one specific type of carbohydrate and you can absolutely live on a diet with no sucrose whatsoever.
2. You can live even without carbohydrates as such, only some fats and proteins are essential. Traditional Inuit diet consists of fat and protein; they are fairly healthy as long as they do not adopt modern Western diet.
“Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30–35% from protein and 15–20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.
This high fat content provides valuable energy and prevents protein poisoning, which historically was sometimes a problem in late winter when game animals grew lean through winter starvation.
It has been suggested that because the fats of the Inuit's wild-caught game are largely monounsaturated and rich in omega-3 fatty acids, the diet does not pose the same health risks as a typical Western high-fat diet.
However, actual evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, with twice the risk to that of the North American population.
Indeed, the cardiovascular risk of this diet is so severe that the addition of a more standard American diet has reduced the incidence of mortality in the Inuit population.
Yes it’s about added sugar which seems to be in almost any food you can buy in the US. Some years ago I developed something like an allergy against sugar. It gives me headaches, joint pain and almost fever like symptoms if I get too much. It’s mind boggling to go shopping and read nutrition labels and realizing that almost every good is sweetened in some way.
Not only alcohol but also gambling, mobile gaming (with micropayments), and many other ”fun” pastimes with addictive qualities have the exact same distribution.
I think you may have read that chart wrong. ~75 is the # of drinks/week of the top decile (!!). Your linked article says:
> As Cook notes in his book, the top 10 percent of drinkers account for well over half of the alcohol consumed in any given year.
Also notable from this article:
> "If the top decile somehow could be induced to curb their consumption level to that of the next lower group (the ninth decile), then total ethanol sales would fall by 60 percent."
No, I didn't misread the chart. I added up the total number of drinks across all categories and did the division. It just so happened that the total number of drinks is close to 100.
> The top 10 percent of drinkers account for well over half of the alcohol consumed in any given year.
Good: alcohol and white sugar/refined carbs are 2 things the body doesn't really need. Skip the desserts and booze isles every time I go to the grocery store and my body thanks me for it
This whole subthread reminded me of a science fiction story I read several decades ago (late 80s or early 90s, I think) about an agent in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Chocolate.
The story centered on an undercover ATFC agent who grew up in Hershey, PA (which gave him some sort of underworld cred) and had infiltrated the Swiss Cartels. As I recall there were some flashbacks about a chocoholic family member or lover that had died which was what set him on a path of self-righteous vengeance, and a raid featuring a showdown with a literally sticky-fingered bad guy. There may have also been a Bond-style femmes-fatale who managed to escape that was a scion of some chocolatier family (Mars, perhaps?). It's possible I'm confabulating some of these details.
I've tried to track down this story a few times without success, but it pops back into mind every time I see some mention of the idea of criminalizing sugar vs. decriminalizing other substances, so I thought I'd mention it on the off chance someone here recognizes it.
Accompanied with drug treatment provided to all, yes, that's a very popular view here.
What drug treatment is available for sugar addiction to people who are self-harming and don't know how to stop?
If classifying it as a drug solved that problem by feeding all human beings healthier foods, so that they can get their caloric intake without industry-cheap sugars, I would absolutely be on board with that :)
Government dietary guidelines effects health education, and my public school health education had an impact on the decisions I made during some of my more formative years.
My favorite logical inconsistency in the food pyramid is that dairy is given it’s own category of required daily intake for a healthy diet, but 65% of the global population has some level of lactose intolerance. The government was claiming that people with lactose intolerance cannot have a complete diet.
> My favorite logical inconsistency in the food pyramid is that dairy is given it’s own category of required daily intake for a healthy diet, but 65% of the global population has some level of lactose intolerance. The government was claiming that people with lactose intolerance cannot have a complete diet.
Keep in mind that lactose intolerance isn't evenly distributed across the globe. People of Northern European extraction have the lowest rates, so the Standard American Diet overlooking or ignoring other extant USAian groups' dietary needs and constraints from consideration (however numerous they may be among the US' population) shouldn't be too startling.
Many years ago I would have viewed an official government nutrition document as a credible source, and random blogs on the internet as a trash source of information. And I still believe one must be very sceptical of random blogs on the internet. Yet, most randos on the internet will at least cite their sources and explain their reasoning for all their decisions. But in the 150 pages long form document, I do not see sources cited or reasoning explained -- https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-1... Is there some other source that explains their decision making process?
In particular, I would be really curious to know what the basis is for the guideline that saturated fats should be replaced by "vegetable" oils, and that "saturated fat should be less than 10% of calories." I've looked at a lot of studies myself over the years, and find the evidence against seed oils to be much stronger than the evidence against saturated fat.
Have a heart for the Pharmaceutical Industry, how will it survive without sugar-laden foods forced down the pipeline?
Who will take all the drugs for so-called "lifestyle diseases"?
But you have pharmaceuticals to help with that, the trick is to keep you just enough alive pumping those drugs in your body. Death is a serious monetary loss.
Yes, the food pyramid was also garbage. To clarify my statement that "Many years ago I would have viewed an official government nutrition document as a credible source" -- it's not that the government information was actually better then, it was that I was more naive.
Just copy the one that canada uses[1] and call it a day. Interestingly their old food guide[2] was similar to the food pyramid (emphasis on carbs, along with dairy as a "food group").
Same. From what I've read, it seems saturated fat is fine. Unsaturated fat is fine. Partially hydrogenated oil causes way more problems than either of those ever could.
The guidelines are just meant as, well, guidelines. They aren't meant to be putting forward an argument to convince anyone.
They're the results of the "Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee", which does contain references, methods, etc and can be found here:
A major problem in dietary studies is the extreme polarization. It seems many participants feel they need to pick a side and argue it to death to make their voice heard.
The initial demonization of saturated fats is a good example of something that was taken too far to the extremes. However, when the evidence linking saturated fat to heart disease was later found to be weak, many people made the mistake of arguing that saturated fat had no links to heart disease, or even that saturated fat is actually actually good for you. Likewise, the initial exaggeration of the role of LDL cholesterol has led to a small but vocal minority of people who claim that LDL has no connection to heart disease, which doesn't agree with the science. Unfortunately, contrarian takes reign supreme when it comes to getting clicks and likes, so that's what we see the most of.
There are small communities that discuss dietary studies from a neutral, scientific point of view. However, it's relatively boring to do so and tends to leave more questions than answers, which doesn't make for great headlines or debate fodder. It's also difficult to introduce new people to dietary studies because there are so many inconclusive and conflicting studies performed over the past several decades. Someone arguing in bad faith can easily cherry-pick a handful of studies to support nearly any position, while choosing to ignore studies that don't reach the conclusions they want to see.
From real-world experience, nit-picking minor details like which types of fats are better than others is missing the big picture. In the real world, the difference between healthy and unhealthy diets is usually plainly obvious to anyone paying attention. Excessive portion sizes, excess sugar, constant snacking, alcohol, few or zero vegetables and other such obvious flaws tend to dominate the problems in people's diet. Making minor changes like swapping one type of fat for another is futile if someone is over-eating at every meal.
However, when the evidence linking saturated fat to heart disease was later found to be weak, many people made the mistake of arguing that saturated fat had no links to heart disease,
Because of the limitations of nutrition science and the incentives of academia, weak evidence is basically equivalent to no evidence.
If "X causes Y" is the dominant paradigm, and a review of the studies shows:
- 20 studies showing "no statistically significant results"
- 10 studies showing "low effect size, but statistically significant" correlations that "X causes Y"
- 0 studies show "X reduces Y"
Does that mean that "X" weakly causes "Y"? No. Because what probably happened is that any time a study got an "X reduces Y" result the academic said, "This looks wrong, let me play with the control variables a bit" until the result became "no significant association." Or possibly they just through the study in the rubbish.
The proper conclusion from the above studies is: "We have not established any link between X and Y. If any link does exist, it is below the threshold of our ability to measure it using our limited tool-set in nutrition science."
Or in other words: any study result that cannot be distinguished from p-hacking should not be admissible as evidence.
AFAICT, this is the case with saturated fat -- there is no set of studies with a sound, convincing methodology that shows a clear and undeniable causal link with heart disease. If you disagree, I'd like to see what studies you find convincing.
the initial exaggeration of the role of LDL cholesterol has led to a small but vocal minority of people who claim that LDL has no connection to heart disease, which doesn't agree with the science
What is the best evidence that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease? What is the best evidence that reducing LDL through either reducing saturated fat or cholesterol intake, or through pharmaceutical intervention reduces all cause mortality?
> Many years ago I would have viewed an official government nutrition document as a credible source
It would be an authoritative source, but just because it's authoritative doesn't mean it is credible or correct.
All the authoritative nutritional sources are backed by corporations. Corporations fight over the nutrition standards and then have the government/NGOs/etc peddle it.
most of the 'bad sugar' in the us is from HFCS. there is only so much cane sugar one can consume. (plus, the bush family has supported the florida sugar cartels..the fanjul brothers from cuba. google it if curious. that's a whole another topic and would distract.)
sugary drinks are the worst culprit and sugar is too expensive for it. high fructose corn syrup, otoh.
but here is a dirty secret: corn is subsidised by the govt. and HCFS is the by product of our mid western corn. and instead of dumping it, it gets back into local consumption.
in a way, we are funding our own HCFS based diseases. i think i have come to a point..in the past 8 years i have been farming..where i can pretty much connect every societal and financial and environmental ill to farm subsidies.
cancel farm subsidies forever and the pandora's box will disappear. poof!
> I think i have come to a point..in the past 8 years i have been farming..where i can pretty much connect every societal and financial and environmental ill to farm subsidies.
Interesting. Could you detail a bit on how farm subsidies create ill? Or link to some articles which do?
[..]Americans are told to fill 50 percent of our plates with fruits and vegetables. But here's the contradiction, as the researchers see it: U.S. agriculture policies "focus on financing the production of corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, sorghum, dairy and livestock," the researchers write. About $170 billion was spent between 1995 and 2010 on these seven commodities and programs, according to the researchers.[..]
[..]"Higher consumption of calories from subsidized food commodities was associated with a greater probability of some cardiometabolic risks," the authors conclude. For instance, they found a higher probability of both obesity and unhealthy blood glucose levels (which raises the risk of Type 2 diabetes) among people who consumed the most calories from subsidized foods.[..]
having pasted the above, the article also takes the other side(because. NPR)..and i have points of disagreement with this bit:
[..]Consider this: Sugar hooked us on yogurt. Americans eschewed yogurt until Dannon began adding sugary jam to the bottom. Same story with cereal. Adding sugar to tasteless flakes drove up sales.
And then there's the idea that crop subsidies don't necessarily make food cheaper. Here are two reasons why. First, only a tiny slice — an estimated 15 percent — of the price we pay for processed foods, say, a box of cornflakes or cookies made with wheat and corn syrup, actually goes to the farmer.[..]
why? because all the excess production has to go somewhere. because school lunches and food bank supplies have certain guidelines. why is smuckers jam approved for school cafeterias? and the other grape jelly guy. i forget the name. because smuckers agrees to buy the excess HFCS.
HFCS also in peanut butter. the healthy vegetables and fruit isnt subsidised. only commodity crops. and only a small portion of it is for human food consumption. and it's only for commodities that is listed on the stock exchange. its the same with ketchup. ever wondered why we have HFCS in our tomato ketchup? and school cafeterias menu includes french fries and ketchup..both of which were considered to be part of the 'daily 5' vegetables/fruits for a balanced diet.
it is also the reason for our high meat consumption and why its cheap. subsidies doesnt pay farmers. it pays them to continue farming for feed, ethanol and HFCS. the good and healthy food we eat comes from canada or south america. because it's cheaper to pay subsidies than hand over something as important as feeding 330 million people.
we cant forget fibre(cotton) and dairy. both of these are dying or loss making sectors in the united states. its in absolute shambles. the guy making the money is the one who sells alfafa or hay. you can make more profits growing hay for feed than growing food for humans. and the guy who makes food for humans barely breaks even. and they are almost always collecting farm subsidies.
fertiliser and input companies(looking at you, bayer nee monsanto!) have their hooks on all commodity crops. because you have to see this from the vantage point of wall street. after we have introduced derivatives, futures and options etc..its a feverish speculative game. with algos running everything now, its certainly not about food anymore. it's a ponzi scheme. farms exist to make profits for inputs, tractor/machinery and seed companies. they are all publicly listed companies. connect the dots. and farms are propped up by tax payer dollars. pension companies and insurance companies buy farmland and play in the stock market. it goes back to paying pensions and m...
I love involved topics, so thanks for the short flashlight.
The link from monsanto via corn and hfcs to sweetened peanut butter and hfcs jam was especially interesting, and funds buying and then leasing out farm land is especially, umm, sweet.
How come we've never labeled leases or patent licenses 'tax'? How come we only consider irs as unjustified money deduction? When in reality irs/taxation is the only lever to feed the skimmed cash back into the pockets who actually did the work?
The older I get, the better I understand the new deal.
i am giving a quickie answer because i like to type long and rambling stream of consciousness answers..and hopefully i will be able to do that in a few hours because this is my one of my absolute favourite subject for chatting. actually, subsidies and supply chains are the flavours of the season. its difficult for me to shut up. but i do want to address this quickly here:
>How come we've never labeled leases or patent licenses 'tax'? How come we only consider irs as unjustified money deduction? When in reality irs/taxation is the only lever to feed the skimmed cash back into the pockets who actually did the work?
i just want to touch upon this from the pov of ag and ag subsidies that is tax payer funded.
the primary motivation for ag subsidies and the 'new deal' was a good one. but it was from a different era and i am afraid that it has outgrown it's usefulness.
subsidies were given to american farmers to grow food, to reduce surpluses and to protect prices.
An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks, and for other purposes.
[..]The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was a United States federal law of the New Deal era designed to boost agricultural prices by reducing surpluses. The government bought livestock for slaughter and paid farmers subsidies not to plant on part of their land. The money for these subsidies was generated through an exclusive tax on companies which processed farm products. The Act created a new agency, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to oversee the distribution of the subsidies.[2][3][4] The Agriculture Marketing Act, which established the Federal Farm Board in 1929, was seen as an important precursor to this act.[5][6] The AAA, along with other New Deal programs, represented the federal government's first substantial effort to address economic welfare in the United States.[7][..]
i believe that we need an overhaul of ag in the usa. it gets mired in social justice and equality and how to redistribute land and creating villains and victims.
all that has it's place..but there are also another important and relevant aspects to this. 1. automation of ag. 2. food sufficiency for our population and excess/surplus for trade 3. protection of habitat and environment. keeping farm land safe and protected from development and speculation.
this isnt an easy topic and finding answers needs a lot of teasing and tugging to undo the knots. but ultimately, subsidies cannot be completely eliminated either because we dont want people to starve because they cant afford food. perhaps we need income supports rather than price supports.
i dont harbour dogma on the subject of subsidies and am still learning. but in my experience of reading and learning and observing, subsidies are always messy. they have been net net harmful than good. there has to be a better way. we need creative solutions.
thanks for your rambling stream of consciousness :-)
there is one key detail in what you say: How do we ensure people don't starve because they can't afford food?
That's a lovely slippery road, because in the same vein you can ask: How do we ensure people don't die just because they can't afford healthcare? or elderly care?
And once we admit ourselfes to that humanist thinking, we may end up wondering how we balance the strive for profit, the force which we have agreed so miraculously "drives innovation", how we balance that with the wealth imbalance it creates. Because of course you maximize profit not just by increasing market value and being better than competition, but also by driving down cost, cost of supplies (there we are with food), cost of labor, tax, any expenses.
The strive for profit was formerly known under the ugly and negatively connotated name of greed. How do we tame and counterbalance greed?
And how to we create and adjust these countermeasures, the checks and balances of wealth distribution, such that every human being, by the grace of being human, has a right to die of age, and not of lack of food, or lacking shelter, or lacking healthcare, or lacking elderly care?
Have we even started thinking about it this way? Have started thinkubg about wealth accumulation and wealth responsibility as a generational and societal contract?
"We, the people, give everybody the freedom and the right to accumulate wealth. Should you become insanely successful with it, then it becomes your job to contribute back to those much less fortunate. and no: just redistributing from the center field to the bottom is not what we do here. We definitively make you, the wealthy, take responsibility for the poor, the sick and the old."
I think such a cleanly spelled out foundation would be helpful, so "the wealthy" and "the middle class" have a shared understanding of responsibility towards "the poor, the old, the sick".
And then we can have much more meaningful conversations about making wealth trickle down, to "the poor, the old, the sick."
We can then decide if we should just provide cash to those "in need", and have it trickle back up? Or do we install better educated agencies, who create and establish frameworks, and subsidize inidrectly, invisibly. like subsidizing agriculture, so food is cheaper in shops? direct funding of health care? elderly care? housing? or a mix? a "slider" which complements what you have as earnings with subsidies for rent, health care, ...?
How do we balance taxation and philantropy?
How do we, the people, raise the funding for this, "fairly and justly"?
The foundation for this really is this is a "contract" of clear responsibility of wealth for the people, who have allowed for and enabled that wealth.
And what I'm missing is a clear and transparent conversation of how wealth "trickles up" and then is redistributed back down. and how much trickling up do we enable? with "intellectual property" law? for plants and plant treatment?
The subsidies you pointed at so elaborately with your links are invisible to "the people" and intransparent even to those directly working with them. The funding for subsidies is currently collected mostly from the middle class, as taxes, and then it rushes through the hands of farmers or other subsidized entities right into the pockets of "intellectual property" owners for agri tech, pharmaceutics, arts, music. Where it disappears from the system, if wealth is not taxed, or otherwise redistributed back into the circle of life, so to speak.
In short: no matter if yo do it via indirect, hidden subsidies into farming, healthcare, elderly care, housing, eductaion (we didn't look at that yet :-D ) or direct subsidies into the pockets of those who don't have a living salary, the key thing is an agreement on where the cash comes from, that you...
I don't like the prevalence of corn sugar in the US either, but I don't feel comfortable saying that we should outright cancel farm subsidies.
I am not sure we want our food infrastructure to be subject solely to the whims of the free market. The free market doesn't care about geopolitics, land use, stability, weather, equitability, etc. "Efficiently allocating resources and maximizing profit" is a different goal than "everybody gets food every day".
https://www.thebalance.com/farm-subsidies-4173885 : this is a good intro read: Farm Subsidies with Pros, Cons, and Impact .. it is very simplistic. And doesn’t address that the subsidized commodities are a small percentage of our food chain.
In fact, most of it isn’t even for human consumption.
It would make sense to see how other countries have dealt with subsidies and see how it works and doesn’t work. NZ for example has eliminated them. Canada has shifted its dairy subsidies from supply side the demand side. Etc.
We still have to consider population size and GDP etc. Canadian population is close to California’s population. NZ population(5 million) is half the size of LA county(10 million at least).
The subsidy for HFCS is mostly just an import tariff on cane sugar. The subsidies increase the cost of sugar (HFCS, cane, beet, etc.). We are subsidizing farmers by increasing the cost to consumers.
If we let the market decide the price, it would only lower the cost of sugar.
I don't think there is any evidence that HFCS is appreciably worse than sucrose. The problem is added sugar of any type.
What does HFCS contain? (High Fructose Corn Syrup)
What does an apple contain?
HFCS comes in mostly two forms HFCS 42 and HFCS 55. The number denotes the dry fructose content. The rest is glucose. This means that 100g of dry HFCS contains 55g of fructose and 45g of sucrose.[0]
100g of raw apples contains 10.39 g of sugars. 2.07g of sucrose, 2.43g of glucose, 5.9g of fructose.[1] Sucrose is fructose and glucose connected by a single oxygen atom. Sucrase in your small intestine splits sucrose into equal parts glucose and fructose. Effectively you're getting 6.935g of fructose and 3.465g of glucose or 66.7% and 33.3% respectively. Even if you want to keep sucrose separate
If you press these raw apples into juice then you'll get a sugar profile that's not too dissimilar from the soft drink that's sweetened with HFCS. It really shouldn't matter which you drink. Blaming all of these issues on HFCS specifically just means that these companies will switch to something like "All Natural Apple Syrup" that has even more fructose than HFCS did.
I do want to mention that eating an apple is different from drinking juice made from that apple. The fruit itself contains fiber, which will slow the absorption of sugar and will mitigate some effects of it. When you press a fruit into juice you tend to lose the fiber.
Why does apple juice have a glycemic index of 45, while a whole apple has a glycemic index of 38 and coke a glycemic index of 65, soft drinks going up to 75, and jelly beans up to 150, more than pure glucose?
And how do apple juice, hfcs soft drinks and fruit juices increase the risk for heart disease?
The question of apples vs hfcs is sweet but misleading.
Edit: oh you've added your own research. Thanks for that. My remark still holds, the real insight is that sweet drinks are no good for health, and hfcs even more so than succrose sweetened drinks. So no matter if apple.juice is similar in contents and effect as a coke, both should be a rare treat, and water and unsweetened tea and fresh apples are really a Good Thing (tm).
I find it interesting that the FDA is recommending 1 drink per day for adult males, meanwhile Europeans live longer than us and drink a lot, on average [1]
"World Health Organization figures show the French are far from being the heaviest drinkers in Europe. They have an average annual consumption per person of 12.6 litres of pure alcohol among the over-15s, behind Lithuania’s 15 litres, Germany’s 13.4 litres, Ireland and Luxembourg’s 13 litres each and Latvia’s 12.9 litres. In the UK 11.5 litres are drunk per person annually. Wine represents 58% of all the alcohol consumed in France.
"
The moral of the story IMO is take anything these institutions recommend with a grain of salt. This is the same FDA that pushed the carb-heavy food pyramid for years, ignoring all of the sugar and corn syrup added to everything[2]
> I find it interesting that the FDA is recommending 1 drink per day for adult males, meanwhile Europeans live longer than us and drink a lot, on average [1]
I don't see the contradiction in this. You can also make the conclusion that europeans are living longer than us despite their alcohol intake, but they can live even longer if they weren't drinking as much.
Yeah based on my anecdotal European experience, they tend to have healthier lifestyles along many facets from food portions to attitude towards walking places. They probably are more keen to taking walks rather than grabbing an Uber for 3 blocks because the walkability of places in America is straight up garbage but that’s another issue, a digression.
But all those factors mean that it’s likely in spite of the drinking that they’re healthier.
My anecdotal European experience is a bit different: I was in France last year and it seemed like literally everyone smoked. Italy in Spain, not so much.
What we do know about alcohol is that the WHO has officially classified it as a Group 1 carcinogen. Studies have linked even low levels of consumption to an increase in cancer risk, so even one drink per days seems higher than it realistically should be.
As for the life expectancy issue, that remains a mystery, but it would appear unlikely that higher alcohol intake is beneficial from a health perspective.
Cancer shows us just how bad we are at statistics and risk management.
Most lung cancer is a result from smoking. That is true. However, it is also true that most smokers don't get lung cancer.
So while drinking alcohol will increase your risk of cancer by a substantial amount comparatively, we're still comparing really small numbers. An increase of 0.1% to 0.2% is a 100% increase in risk, but you're still not likely to get it.
And before anyone reads this as a pro-smoking message, there are many other ailments that come with smoking that happen with greater frequency. However, smoking will not guarantee you get lung cancer.
> Cancer shows us just how bad we are at statistics and risk management.
> Most lung cancer is a result from smoking. That is true. However, it is also true that most smokers don't get lung cancer.
> So while drinking alcohol will increase your risk of cancer by a substantial amount comparatively, we're still comparing really small numbers. An increase of 0.1% to 0.2% is a 100% increase in risk, but you're still not likely to get it.
The problem with this sort of thinking is that risk factors are, roughly speaking, multiplicative. So if you have other risk factors such as a family history of lung cancer, smoking may bump your personal risk from 12% to 24%. Still an increase of 100%.
And of course, that's just a combination of two specific risk factors, many of which are implicated in multiple conditions (for example smoking also increases the risk for other lung conditions such as emphysema, heart problems, etc., meanwhile alcohol consumption also increases risks for diabetes, cirrhosis, heart problems, stroke, etc.), and many risk factors aren't as obvious (or as well marketed).
The flip side of the multiplicativity of risk factors is that if you have several that are at least nominally under your control just eliminating one or two factors is probably going to be worth the effort (but if you are an overweight, snoring, sedentary, smoker and drinker, who consumes way too much sugary and salty snacks, etc. etc., choosing to take the stairs instead of the elevator is probably not the place to start).
Anyway, sidestepping those risk factors you can both identify and do something about is probably worth it, because no individual is really representative of the population as a whole (ie. there are no people who are average in every way), and you don't really know how large your personal base level of risk is that the one isolated factor is multiplying.
Here in Lithuania I'd say most people know someone who has died from alcohol (directly and indirectly), and many more people who you would consider alcoholics. I wouldn't say that's something a modern nation should strive for...
There's been a notable push in the UK over the last several years to reduce alcohol consumption guidelines. There have been well-established medical professionals that have argued that the correct "daily limit" is zero, but this has been shot down for a variety of reasons (lobbying is likely one of them, but not the only one). Although the UK does put alcohol consumption at the center of social life, civic institutions there really are pushing to significantly reduce the "norms".
Gonna go out on a limb here and say this is a spurious correlation. Those nations differ from us immensely in their diet and overall food consumption, and perhaps more importantly they have universal healthcare and likely exercise more.
If you truly want to get healthy visit any naturopathic doc. They will readily give you recommendations to cut sugar out of your diet. They will also closely monitor your blood levels for a ton of different alarms. It's odd because it's stuff that regular doctors "should" do but instead a regular doctor just prescribes stuff when you get frequent headaches or prescribes different stuff if you have moods. They don't even test your blood for various things unless you ask these days.
A naturopath will typically find the hormonal imbalances that is causing all this shit and provide supplements that actually work. Sure they may also recommend a statin, but you will get there far faster than a 9-5 kaiser MD.
>If you truly want to get healthy visit any naturopathic doc
The wikipedia article for "Naturopathy" doesn't inspire confidence.
>Naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is a form of alternative medicine that employs an array of pseudoscientific practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", or promoting "self-healing". The ideology and methods of naturopathy are based on vitalism and folk medicine, rather than evidence-based medicine (EBM).[2] Naturopathic practitioners generally recommend against following modern medical practices, including but not limited to medical testing, drugs, vaccinations, and surgery.[3][4][5][6] Instead, naturopathic practice relies on unscientific notions, often leading naturopaths to diagnoses and treatments that have no factual merit.[7][8]
>Naturopathy is considered by the medical profession to be ineffective and harmful, raising ethical issues about its practice.[7][9][10] In addition to condemnations and criticism from the medical community, such as the American Cancer Society,[11] naturopaths have repeatedly been denounced as and accused of being charlatans and practicing quackery.[7][12][13][14][15][16]
A lot of that is just plain wrong. At this point Wikipedia is often just a battleground for information wars. Naturopaths have been recommending a low sugar diet for like 30 years. So is that quackery?
They'll just start using other means of sweetened products to advertise, or do what Smirnoff did and use their brand to advertise a product that isn't restricted.
Not unexpected from the administration that claims that climate change is not real, in the country where close to half of the population believe in imaginary friends and that vaccines are bad and contain microchips.
The guidelines, as linked by chlodwig[0] to the report[1], clearly state that if you don't drink you should avoid it and that if you do drink that you likely over consume and should limit yourself. This is right before citing increased risk of death associated with consumption. The implication that we should avoid alcohol seems rather clear, contrary to the headline. Even in the article, the subtext undermines the headline. It is accurate in that it doesn't explicitly tell us to stop but fairly meaninglessly so.
I wonder if anyone actually thinks everyone would stop if these guidelines told us to, especially given our ongoing lack of compliance.
Sugar and alcohol are the two most (ab)used substances in America. Source: rampant obesity and alcohol abuse everywhere you look, with relentless advertising of both (see Superbowl).
There's way too much fucking money being made to cut these industries off by even a percent.
195 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 232 ms ] threadSonny Perdue... A charming, forward thinker and believer in science. /s
Exactly who you want in charge of health.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/12/monsters-of-202...
His bias would lean towards less regulations, which is a position, fine, but when you're responsible on a federal level, that should benefit all Americans, not just Companies. But thats my 2 cents.
Guidelines:
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-1...
The entire thing is a 164 page PDF, there's also a much shorter executive summary:
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-1...
Eat these:
• Vegetables of all types—dark green; red and orange; beans, peas, and lentils; starchy; and other vegetables
• Fruits, especially whole fruit
• Grains, at least half of which are whole grain
• Dairy, including fat-free or low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese, and/or lactose-free versions and fortified soy beverages and yogurt as alternatives
• Protein foods, including lean meats, poultry, and eggs; seafood; beans, peas, and lentils; and nuts, seeds, and soy products
• Oils, including vegetable oils and oils in food, such as seafood and nuts
Don’t eat these:
• Added sugars—Less than 10 percent of calories per day starting at age 2. Avoid foods and beverages with added sugars for those younger than age 2.
• Saturated fat—Less than 10 percent of calories per day starting at age 2.
• Sodium—Less than 2,300 milligrams per day—and even less for children younger than age 14.
• Alcoholic beverages—Adults of legal drinking age can choose not to drink, or to drink in moderation by limiting intake to 2 drinks or less in a day for men and 1 drink or less in a day for women, when alcohol is consumed. Drinking less is better for health than drinking more. There are some adults who should not drink alcohol, such as women who are pregnant.
"The federal government on Tuesday issued new dietary guidelines that keep current allowances for sugar and alcohol consumption unchanged, rejecting recommendations by its scientific advisory committee to make significant cuts.
The scientific committee, which was composed of 20 academics and doctors, had recommended cutting the limit for added sugars in the diet to 6% of daily calories from 10% in the current guidelines, citing rising rates of obesity and the link between obesity and health problems like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer."
https://promarket.org/2016/09/19/sugar-industry-buys-academi...
That doesn't mean it's all wrong, just that the right parts are those that accidentally coincide with dominant industry interests.
I think the parts that are right are not those that coincide with industry interests but those that go against industry interests. Those parts are probably directionally correct but have softened language due to lobbying.
(Sorry, that escalated quickly)
Hardly an outrage that recommended make alcohol consumption stayed the same instead of being the same as female one. I am quite feminist and still ... like ... admit that average malé body and female body are not perfectly equal when it comes to alcohol.
I'm not sure who out there is done a favor by being told that some alcohol and added sugar is fine when a better mindset is to be aware that it's pure indulgence that has nothing to do with nutrition.
To me it's like lowering the daily fiber recommendation just to make people feel better about constantly undershooting it.
These guidelines always sound like hopes and dreams in the US. Companies just pump their foods with sugar to bump up calories or make it taste better. You can only get such minimal sugar in your diet if you exclusively go on keto-like diet.
Most truck drivers in the US take a physical and get a two year medical card. Diabetics that demonstrate blood glucose control get one year.
At my last physical my blood glucose was way out of control (my bad), and they gave me a three month card and "come back way better than this in three months."
I then ate mostly meat, cheese, plain greek yogurt, and protein bars (17g carbs) and protein shakes (5g). Pre-sliced apples and frozen vegetables. Minimal cheating, confessed in my diary. Most of my shopping is Walmart, because you can park a truck up in there.
In regular consultation with a nutritionist in my doctor's office (I send her my weekly carb and blood glucose diary), I generally eat anywhere from 40 to 80 grams of carbs, according to labels, or Wolfram Alpha when needed. Occasionally low hundreds.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=nutrition
Not quite keto, but low and mostly disciplined. Minimal exercise.
My glucose readings went from high 300s (like I said, out of control) to 90s and low hundreds. My nutritionist saw a few low 80s in my diary and warned me that 80 is moving into "low blood glucose."
Aaannd ... I've lost 30 pounds; 220 to 190, at 5'11". That was an absolute and unanticipated side effect.
The other main diabetic measure is A1C, which requires a blood draw. Last recent physical was 14, double what's reasonable. It's a 3 month average, so it won't be where I want it to be after 3 months, but I expect enough improvement to regain my one year medical card.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycated_hemoglobin
All this (and the "minimal exercise" comment) to say "low carbs good, added sugar and processed grain really bad."
As a trucker, almost everything I eat comes in a package, and is cooked in my microwave or eaten directly out of my little refrigerator. I read the labels, and put it back if there's added sugar, or enough carbs that that one meal would dominate my carb budget. I eat oatmeal (with water, not milk, my preference) almost every morning, steel cut and out of the round cardboard container, not flavored floor sweepings in envelopes.
Read the labels. And if you're diabetic, stick your fingers every day, even if you don't use insulin. If you don't read your blood glucose regularly, you could be lying to yourself.
Anecdote of one.
You're right on regular monitoring even without taking in carbs, depending on your metabolism, you can still get crazy high readings on almost no carbs in the diet... Took me 6 months of no carbs and had to still take insulin on occassion to keep it controlled.
Wolfram Alpha tells me a quarter pounder is 42g carbs, and it also tells me that the bun is 23g. So the quarter pounder that I just ate goes in my diary as 19g carbs, and the bun goes in the trash.
Feels like suggesting lowering the speed limit to 55mph because it causes fewer deaths than 65mph. Just makes people skeptical of government overreach.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6099584/
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/265635#can-wine-im...
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191021-is-wine-good-for...
So I guess it also depends on what type of alcohol you consume.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipak_K._Das
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/265635#can-wine-im...
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191021-is-wine-good-for...
It looks like there is no strong consensus on this issue among the researchers.
The ones like me, who don't drink every day, but then get wasted one weekend, are the most negatively affected by alcohol.
There's some evidence that the beneficial impact of alcohol comes from the comparison between people who have one drink a day (relatively healthy) and recovering alcoholics (typically extremely unhealthy).
People somewhat regularly having 3 beers might be convinced to only have 2 or 2 down to only 1.
Actually, the 55mph speed limit was enacted as an energy conservation measure, not as a public safety measure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
I counted 120 grams of added sugar a day in the school lunch of my son. Non-fat chocolate milk and sugar laden starches. Juice counts as a serving of fruit (and our pediatrician didn’t see a problem with that)
But hey... they’ve got a bag of 4 carrots so that will balance it out right?
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2011/11/15/142360146/pi...
This has been a running joke / outrage in our house.
This has been going on for just about 40 years now: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup_as_a_vegetable
1. Your drink choice was milk or chocolate milk. Both had artificial sweeteners. Apparently, we had no lactose intolerant kids in the whole school.
2. We were fed lots of bread and potatoes. Even the main dish was often pizza or similar, which contains bread.
3. Green vegetables were exceedingly rare.
4. A kid in Kindergarten and a 6th grader got the same lunch.
In retrospect my lunch diet was atrocious due to this as a kid. You don't need to feed kids sweetened crap all the time. It's especially hard to justify given that all the public schools had complete kitchens that were used every day.
Basically, public school was just state sponsored day care where I grew up. Not only that, it was awful quality day care.
I’m sure they were still too much carbs, but they had protein and real vegetables, though usually canned.
https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/school-lunch...
Compare their "about us" pages:
FDA:
"The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices; and by ensuring the safety of our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation."
USDA:
"We have a vision to provide economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve our Nation's natural resources through conservation, restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands."
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/what-we-do
https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda
It's another government agency that does not serve the greater good.
This podcast enlightens many of our current ag policies: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/farms-race/
It’s pretty clear that the prevailing ideology of most people in leadership is that whatever is good for companies is the greater good.
And it seems like I have access to more medicines and medical data than my grandparents did.
More transparency would be nice, more data from more frequent experiments would be nice. But the point is, they are using scientific principles (over the long term, I can't say for specific administrations).
On a related note, the alcohol industry is actually really shady. They like to put on a clean image of providing responsible adults entertainment, but in reality the industry is deeply dependent on alcoholics. It’s estimated (2007 numbers) that just over 10% of alcohol drinkers consume half of the alcohol in the United States. Without that small cohort of alcoholics, a large percentage of the industry would go broke. Ever since learning this fact, I’ve taken an extra skeptical eye towards anything that even vaguely looks like alcohol industry influence.
Another strange food is dairy. In fact, I think that most Europeans were lactose-intolerant, until they started getting people from Asia mixing in genes.
There was a study, to that effect, recently; where they looked at old DNA samples.
I remember the Masai tribe, in Africa. These are some of the most robust, healthy people you have ever seen, and their traditional food is cow's milk, mixed with cow's blood. YUM.
But I loves my sugar and milk in my tea (don't drink booze, though).
There is a major difference between someone averaging a drink every other day or so, and someone having 10 drinks a day. The latter group is unquestionably addicted, with extremely negative personal and social consequences for that addiction.
I think it's the other way around, but i claim no expertise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence
What business wouldn't adapt to the fact that their customers' purchases follow a Pareto distribution? Many (most?) do. I'm not saying that they're not shady, but this isn't evidence of that.
https://www.recoveryanswers.org/research-post/alcohol-sales-...
As you say, it is completely predictable that beverage companies would adapt to a Pareto-like distribution of consumption. However, unlike for things like books or outdoor equipment, adapting to a Pareto distribution here means that a company is intentionally profiting from addiction. This is an absolutely huge negative externality in terms of the social , health, and economic harm that alcohol addiction causes.
Trying to maintain your market, while giving all sorts of people liver cancer, cirrhosis, fetal alcohol syndrom, et al, is probably considered shady by most people.
Even as teenagers we drink a pretty large amount before actually going out and really getting going.
Just base the cost of a off licence on square footage.
Can I assume you mean simple sugars that are added for taste? If you literally meant what you said, well you will die without carbohydrates (sugar).
The ‘everything is sugar’ meme really frustrates the conversation about nutrition and does lead to people making bad nutrition choices, as I’ve personally observed IRL.
One can argue that you might be healthier in the long run with carbohydrates, I’m inclined to disagree, but to argue that you can’t get energy without them is just objectively incorrect.
0 - There is a tiny percentage (10 cases) of the population with the inability to build up body fat thanks to the Mardanoid-progeroid-lipodystrophy syndrome. Those with the syndrome can’t store excess calories in the form of body fat, and must eat continuous small meals to meet their metabolic needs. Curiously it seems like the lack of body fat makes their metabolism incredibly inefficient, as they are reported to average 5,000 to 8,000 calories a day. I presume this is because every calorie they eat is “use it or lose it”, resulting in a lot of waste.
1 - Humans can store some glucose in their liver and muscles for immediate use. But strenuous activity can easily exhaust this supply, so it’s not a reasonable source of energy for even moderate fasts.
2. You can live even without carbohydrates as such, only some fats and proteins are essential. Traditional Inuit diet consists of fat and protein; they are fairly healthy as long as they do not adopt modern Western diet.
https://theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-heart...
“Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30–35% from protein and 15–20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.
This high fat content provides valuable energy and prevents protein poisoning, which historically was sometimes a problem in late winter when game animals grew lean through winter starvation.
It has been suggested that because the fats of the Inuit's wild-caught game are largely monounsaturated and rich in omega-3 fatty acids, the diet does not pose the same health risks as a typical Western high-fat diet.
However, actual evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, with twice the risk to that of the North American population.
Indeed, the cardiovascular risk of this diet is so severe that the addition of a more standard American diet has reduced the incidence of mortality in the Inuit population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine
Popular treatment is to eliminate sugar as a starting point. Then move onto other inflammatory foods.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/think...
> As Cook notes in his book, the top 10 percent of drinkers account for well over half of the alcohol consumed in any given year.
Also notable from this article:
> "If the top decile somehow could be induced to curb their consumption level to that of the next lower group (the ninth decile), then total ethanol sales would fall by 60 percent."
> The top 10 percent of drinkers account for well over half of the alcohol consumed in any given year.
Yes, 75% is well over half.
maybe i'm just an optimist
I mean, i am fine with heroin being illegal. But I don't think the way it is done should be done more and more.
The story centered on an undercover ATFC agent who grew up in Hershey, PA (which gave him some sort of underworld cred) and had infiltrated the Swiss Cartels. As I recall there were some flashbacks about a chocoholic family member or lover that had died which was what set him on a path of self-righteous vengeance, and a raid featuring a showdown with a literally sticky-fingered bad guy. There may have also been a Bond-style femmes-fatale who managed to escape that was a scion of some chocolatier family (Mars, perhaps?). It's possible I'm confabulating some of these details.
I've tried to track down this story a few times without success, but it pops back into mind every time I see some mention of the idea of criminalizing sugar vs. decriminalizing other substances, so I thought I'd mention it on the off chance someone here recognizes it.
What drug treatment is available for sugar addiction to people who are self-harming and don't know how to stop?
If classifying it as a drug solved that problem by feeding all human beings healthier foods, so that they can get their caloric intake without industry-cheap sugars, I would absolutely be on board with that :)
Very few people believe "all drugs should be legal", that's a complete misrepresentation.
also, in line with your observation I think sugar should be a schedule I drug
Took a long time to realize just how bad the food pyramid was.
Keep in mind that lactose intolerance isn't evenly distributed across the globe. People of Northern European extraction have the lowest rates, so the Standard American Diet overlooking or ignoring other extant USAian groups' dietary needs and constraints from consideration (however numerous they may be among the US' population) shouldn't be too startling.
In particular, I would be really curious to know what the basis is for the guideline that saturated fats should be replaced by "vegetable" oils, and that "saturated fat should be less than 10% of calories." I've looked at a lot of studies myself over the years, and find the evidence against seed oils to be much stronger than the evidence against saturated fat.
(or, as I heard on a podcast the other day, "a nutritious kid's breakfast was a bowl of sugary cereal, a glass of orange juice, and a piece of toast")
[1] https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/p...
[2] https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/calgaryherald/wp-con...
They're the results of the "Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee", which does contain references, methods, etc and can be found here:
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/2020-advisory-committee-re...
The initial demonization of saturated fats is a good example of something that was taken too far to the extremes. However, when the evidence linking saturated fat to heart disease was later found to be weak, many people made the mistake of arguing that saturated fat had no links to heart disease, or even that saturated fat is actually actually good for you. Likewise, the initial exaggeration of the role of LDL cholesterol has led to a small but vocal minority of people who claim that LDL has no connection to heart disease, which doesn't agree with the science. Unfortunately, contrarian takes reign supreme when it comes to getting clicks and likes, so that's what we see the most of.
There are small communities that discuss dietary studies from a neutral, scientific point of view. However, it's relatively boring to do so and tends to leave more questions than answers, which doesn't make for great headlines or debate fodder. It's also difficult to introduce new people to dietary studies because there are so many inconclusive and conflicting studies performed over the past several decades. Someone arguing in bad faith can easily cherry-pick a handful of studies to support nearly any position, while choosing to ignore studies that don't reach the conclusions they want to see.
From real-world experience, nit-picking minor details like which types of fats are better than others is missing the big picture. In the real world, the difference between healthy and unhealthy diets is usually plainly obvious to anyone paying attention. Excessive portion sizes, excess sugar, constant snacking, alcohol, few or zero vegetables and other such obvious flaws tend to dominate the problems in people's diet. Making minor changes like swapping one type of fat for another is futile if someone is over-eating at every meal.
Because of the limitations of nutrition science and the incentives of academia, weak evidence is basically equivalent to no evidence.
If "X causes Y" is the dominant paradigm, and a review of the studies shows:
- 20 studies showing "no statistically significant results"
- 10 studies showing "low effect size, but statistically significant" correlations that "X causes Y"
- 0 studies show "X reduces Y"
Does that mean that "X" weakly causes "Y"? No. Because what probably happened is that any time a study got an "X reduces Y" result the academic said, "This looks wrong, let me play with the control variables a bit" until the result became "no significant association." Or possibly they just through the study in the rubbish.
The proper conclusion from the above studies is: "We have not established any link between X and Y. If any link does exist, it is below the threshold of our ability to measure it using our limited tool-set in nutrition science."
Or in other words: any study result that cannot be distinguished from p-hacking should not be admissible as evidence.
AFAICT, this is the case with saturated fat -- there is no set of studies with a sound, convincing methodology that shows a clear and undeniable causal link with heart disease. If you disagree, I'd like to see what studies you find convincing.
the initial exaggeration of the role of LDL cholesterol has led to a small but vocal minority of people who claim that LDL has no connection to heart disease, which doesn't agree with the science
What is the best evidence that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease? What is the best evidence that reducing LDL through either reducing saturated fat or cholesterol intake, or through pharmaceutical intervention reduces all cause mortality?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
It would be an authoritative source, but just because it's authoritative doesn't mean it is credible or correct.
All the authoritative nutritional sources are backed by corporations. Corporations fight over the nutrition standards and then have the government/NGOs/etc peddle it.
sugary drinks are the worst culprit and sugar is too expensive for it. high fructose corn syrup, otoh.
but here is a dirty secret: corn is subsidised by the govt. and HCFS is the by product of our mid western corn. and instead of dumping it, it gets back into local consumption.
in a way, we are funding our own HCFS based diseases. i think i have come to a point..in the past 8 years i have been farming..where i can pretty much connect every societal and financial and environmental ill to farm subsidies.
cancel farm subsidies forever and the pandora's box will disappear. poof!
Interesting. Could you detail a bit on how farm subsidies create ill? Or link to some articles which do?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/07/18/486051480/we...
[..]Americans are told to fill 50 percent of our plates with fruits and vegetables. But here's the contradiction, as the researchers see it: U.S. agriculture policies "focus on financing the production of corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, sorghum, dairy and livestock," the researchers write. About $170 billion was spent between 1995 and 2010 on these seven commodities and programs, according to the researchers.[..]
[..]"Higher consumption of calories from subsidized food commodities was associated with a greater probability of some cardiometabolic risks," the authors conclude. For instance, they found a higher probability of both obesity and unhealthy blood glucose levels (which raises the risk of Type 2 diabetes) among people who consumed the most calories from subsidized foods.[..]
having pasted the above, the article also takes the other side(because. NPR)..and i have points of disagreement with this bit:
[..]Consider this: Sugar hooked us on yogurt. Americans eschewed yogurt until Dannon began adding sugary jam to the bottom. Same story with cereal. Adding sugar to tasteless flakes drove up sales.
And then there's the idea that crop subsidies don't necessarily make food cheaper. Here are two reasons why. First, only a tiny slice — an estimated 15 percent — of the price we pay for processed foods, say, a box of cornflakes or cookies made with wheat and corn syrup, actually goes to the farmer.[..]
why? because all the excess production has to go somewhere. because school lunches and food bank supplies have certain guidelines. why is smuckers jam approved for school cafeterias? and the other grape jelly guy. i forget the name. because smuckers agrees to buy the excess HFCS.
HFCS also in peanut butter. the healthy vegetables and fruit isnt subsidised. only commodity crops. and only a small portion of it is for human food consumption. and it's only for commodities that is listed on the stock exchange. its the same with ketchup. ever wondered why we have HFCS in our tomato ketchup? and school cafeterias menu includes french fries and ketchup..both of which were considered to be part of the 'daily 5' vegetables/fruits for a balanced diet.
it is also the reason for our high meat consumption and why its cheap. subsidies doesnt pay farmers. it pays them to continue farming for feed, ethanol and HFCS. the good and healthy food we eat comes from canada or south america. because it's cheaper to pay subsidies than hand over something as important as feeding 330 million people.
we cant forget fibre(cotton) and dairy. both of these are dying or loss making sectors in the united states. its in absolute shambles. the guy making the money is the one who sells alfafa or hay. you can make more profits growing hay for feed than growing food for humans. and the guy who makes food for humans barely breaks even. and they are almost always collecting farm subsidies.
fertiliser and input companies(looking at you, bayer nee monsanto!) have their hooks on all commodity crops. because you have to see this from the vantage point of wall street. after we have introduced derivatives, futures and options etc..its a feverish speculative game. with algos running everything now, its certainly not about food anymore. it's a ponzi scheme. farms exist to make profits for inputs, tractor/machinery and seed companies. they are all publicly listed companies. connect the dots. and farms are propped up by tax payer dollars. pension companies and insurance companies buy farmland and play in the stock market. it goes back to paying pensions and m...
The link from monsanto via corn and hfcs to sweetened peanut butter and hfcs jam was especially interesting, and funds buying and then leasing out farm land is especially, umm, sweet.
How come we've never labeled leases or patent licenses 'tax'? How come we only consider irs as unjustified money deduction? When in reality irs/taxation is the only lever to feed the skimmed cash back into the pockets who actually did the work?
The older I get, the better I understand the new deal.
>How come we've never labeled leases or patent licenses 'tax'? How come we only consider irs as unjustified money deduction? When in reality irs/taxation is the only lever to feed the skimmed cash back into the pockets who actually did the work?
i just want to touch upon this from the pov of ag and ag subsidies that is tax payer funded.
the primary motivation for ag subsidies and the 'new deal' was a good one. but it was from a different era and i am afraid that it has outgrown it's usefulness.
subsidies were given to american farmers to grow food, to reduce surpluses and to protect prices.
An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks, and for other purposes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act :
[..]The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was a United States federal law of the New Deal era designed to boost agricultural prices by reducing surpluses. The government bought livestock for slaughter and paid farmers subsidies not to plant on part of their land. The money for these subsidies was generated through an exclusive tax on companies which processed farm products. The Act created a new agency, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to oversee the distribution of the subsidies.[2][3][4] The Agriculture Marketing Act, which established the Federal Farm Board in 1929, was seen as an important precursor to this act.[5][6] The AAA, along with other New Deal programs, represented the federal government's first substantial effort to address economic welfare in the United States.[7][..]
further reading: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/21/do-farm-sub... and https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/1996/farm-bills-and-f...
i believe that we need an overhaul of ag in the usa. it gets mired in social justice and equality and how to redistribute land and creating villains and victims.
all that has it's place..but there are also another important and relevant aspects to this. 1. automation of ag. 2. food sufficiency for our population and excess/surplus for trade 3. protection of habitat and environment. keeping farm land safe and protected from development and speculation.
this isnt an easy topic and finding answers needs a lot of teasing and tugging to undo the knots. but ultimately, subsidies cannot be completely eliminated either because we dont want people to starve because they cant afford food. perhaps we need income supports rather than price supports.
i dont harbour dogma on the subject of subsidies and am still learning. but in my experience of reading and learning and observing, subsidies are always messy. they have been net net harmful than good. there has to be a better way. we need creative solutions.
i am sure we will get there. someday.
there is one key detail in what you say: How do we ensure people don't starve because they can't afford food?
That's a lovely slippery road, because in the same vein you can ask: How do we ensure people don't die just because they can't afford healthcare? or elderly care?
And once we admit ourselfes to that humanist thinking, we may end up wondering how we balance the strive for profit, the force which we have agreed so miraculously "drives innovation", how we balance that with the wealth imbalance it creates. Because of course you maximize profit not just by increasing market value and being better than competition, but also by driving down cost, cost of supplies (there we are with food), cost of labor, tax, any expenses.
The strive for profit was formerly known under the ugly and negatively connotated name of greed. How do we tame and counterbalance greed?
And how to we create and adjust these countermeasures, the checks and balances of wealth distribution, such that every human being, by the grace of being human, has a right to die of age, and not of lack of food, or lacking shelter, or lacking healthcare, or lacking elderly care?
Have we even started thinking about it this way? Have started thinkubg about wealth accumulation and wealth responsibility as a generational and societal contract?
"We, the people, give everybody the freedom and the right to accumulate wealth. Should you become insanely successful with it, then it becomes your job to contribute back to those much less fortunate. and no: just redistributing from the center field to the bottom is not what we do here. We definitively make you, the wealthy, take responsibility for the poor, the sick and the old."
I think such a cleanly spelled out foundation would be helpful, so "the wealthy" and "the middle class" have a shared understanding of responsibility towards "the poor, the old, the sick".
And then we can have much more meaningful conversations about making wealth trickle down, to "the poor, the old, the sick."
We can then decide if we should just provide cash to those "in need", and have it trickle back up? Or do we install better educated agencies, who create and establish frameworks, and subsidize inidrectly, invisibly. like subsidizing agriculture, so food is cheaper in shops? direct funding of health care? elderly care? housing? or a mix? a "slider" which complements what you have as earnings with subsidies for rent, health care, ...?
How do we balance taxation and philantropy?
How do we, the people, raise the funding for this, "fairly and justly"?
The foundation for this really is this is a "contract" of clear responsibility of wealth for the people, who have allowed for and enabled that wealth.
And what I'm missing is a clear and transparent conversation of how wealth "trickles up" and then is redistributed back down. and how much trickling up do we enable? with "intellectual property" law? for plants and plant treatment?
The subsidies you pointed at so elaborately with your links are invisible to "the people" and intransparent even to those directly working with them. The funding for subsidies is currently collected mostly from the middle class, as taxes, and then it rushes through the hands of farmers or other subsidized entities right into the pockets of "intellectual property" owners for agri tech, pharmaceutics, arts, music. Where it disappears from the system, if wealth is not taxed, or otherwise redistributed back into the circle of life, so to speak.
In short: no matter if yo do it via indirect, hidden subsidies into farming, healthcare, elderly care, housing, eductaion (we didn't look at that yet :-D ) or direct subsidies into the pockets of those who don't have a living salary, the key thing is an agreement on where the cash comes from, that you...
I am not sure we want our food infrastructure to be subject solely to the whims of the free market. The free market doesn't care about geopolitics, land use, stability, weather, equitability, etc. "Efficiently allocating resources and maximizing profit" is a different goal than "everybody gets food every day".
In fact, most of it isn’t even for human consumption.
It would make sense to see how other countries have dealt with subsidies and see how it works and doesn’t work. NZ for example has eliminated them. Canada has shifted its dairy subsidies from supply side the demand side. Etc.
We still have to consider population size and GDP etc. Canadian population is close to California’s population. NZ population(5 million) is half the size of LA county(10 million at least).
2011 opinion piece : https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/dont-end-ag...
2020: https://reason.com/2020/02/29/trumps-proposed-cuts-to-farm-s...
The situation is very nuanced.
If we let the market decide the price, it would only lower the cost of sugar.
I don't think there is any evidence that HFCS is appreciably worse than sucrose. The problem is added sugar of any type.
What does an apple contain?
HFCS comes in mostly two forms HFCS 42 and HFCS 55. The number denotes the dry fructose content. The rest is glucose. This means that 100g of dry HFCS contains 55g of fructose and 45g of sucrose.[0]
100g of raw apples contains 10.39 g of sugars. 2.07g of sucrose, 2.43g of glucose, 5.9g of fructose.[1] Sucrose is fructose and glucose connected by a single oxygen atom. Sucrase in your small intestine splits sucrose into equal parts glucose and fructose. Effectively you're getting 6.935g of fructose and 3.465g of glucose or 66.7% and 33.3% respectively. Even if you want to keep sucrose separate
If you press these raw apples into juice then you'll get a sugar profile that's not too dissimilar from the soft drink that's sweetened with HFCS. It really shouldn't matter which you drink. Blaming all of these issues on HFCS specifically just means that these companies will switch to something like "All Natural Apple Syrup" that has even more fructose than HFCS did.
I do want to mention that eating an apple is different from drinking juice made from that apple. The fruit itself contains fiber, which will slow the absorption of sugar and will mitigate some effects of it. When you press a fruit into juice you tend to lose the fiber.
[0] https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-fruct...
[1] https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171688/n...
The interesting question is another one:
Why does apple juice have a glycemic index of 45, while a whole apple has a glycemic index of 38 and coke a glycemic index of 65, soft drinks going up to 75, and jelly beans up to 150, more than pure glucose?
And how do apple juice, hfcs soft drinks and fruit juices increase the risk for heart disease?
https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-01...
The question of apples vs hfcs is sweet but misleading.
Edit: oh you've added your own research. Thanks for that. My remark still holds, the real insight is that sweet drinks are no good for health, and hfcs even more so than succrose sweetened drinks. So no matter if apple.juice is similar in contents and effect as a coke, both should be a rare treat, and water and unsweetened tea and fresh apples are really a Good Thing (tm).
"World Health Organization figures show the French are far from being the heaviest drinkers in Europe. They have an average annual consumption per person of 12.6 litres of pure alcohol among the over-15s, behind Lithuania’s 15 litres, Germany’s 13.4 litres, Ireland and Luxembourg’s 13 litres each and Latvia’s 12.9 litres. In the UK 11.5 litres are drunk per person annually. Wine represents 58% of all the alcohol consumed in France. "
The moral of the story IMO is take anything these institutions recommend with a grain of salt. This is the same FDA that pushed the carb-heavy food pyramid for years, ignoring all of the sugar and corn syrup added to everything[2]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/the-french-mus...
[2]https://www.salon.com/2015/04/12/the_fdas_phony_nutrition_sc...
I don't see the contradiction in this. You can also make the conclusion that europeans are living longer than us despite their alcohol intake, but they can live even longer if they weren't drinking as much.
But all those factors mean that it’s likely in spite of the drinking that they’re healthier.
As for the life expectancy issue, that remains a mystery, but it would appear unlikely that higher alcohol intake is beneficial from a health perspective.
Most lung cancer is a result from smoking. That is true. However, it is also true that most smokers don't get lung cancer.
So while drinking alcohol will increase your risk of cancer by a substantial amount comparatively, we're still comparing really small numbers. An increase of 0.1% to 0.2% is a 100% increase in risk, but you're still not likely to get it.
And before anyone reads this as a pro-smoking message, there are many other ailments that come with smoking that happen with greater frequency. However, smoking will not guarantee you get lung cancer.
> Most lung cancer is a result from smoking. That is true. However, it is also true that most smokers don't get lung cancer.
> So while drinking alcohol will increase your risk of cancer by a substantial amount comparatively, we're still comparing really small numbers. An increase of 0.1% to 0.2% is a 100% increase in risk, but you're still not likely to get it.
The problem with this sort of thinking is that risk factors are, roughly speaking, multiplicative. So if you have other risk factors such as a family history of lung cancer, smoking may bump your personal risk from 12% to 24%. Still an increase of 100%.
And of course, that's just a combination of two specific risk factors, many of which are implicated in multiple conditions (for example smoking also increases the risk for other lung conditions such as emphysema, heart problems, etc., meanwhile alcohol consumption also increases risks for diabetes, cirrhosis, heart problems, stroke, etc.), and many risk factors aren't as obvious (or as well marketed).
The flip side of the multiplicativity of risk factors is that if you have several that are at least nominally under your control just eliminating one or two factors is probably going to be worth the effort (but if you are an overweight, snoring, sedentary, smoker and drinker, who consumes way too much sugary and salty snacks, etc. etc., choosing to take the stairs instead of the elevator is probably not the place to start).
Anyway, sidestepping those risk factors you can both identify and do something about is probably worth it, because no individual is really representative of the population as a whole (ie. there are no people who are average in every way), and you don't really know how large your personal base level of risk is that the one isolated factor is multiplying.
Maybe it's because they have better and cheaper healthcare.
A naturopath will typically find the hormonal imbalances that is causing all this shit and provide supplements that actually work. Sure they may also recommend a statin, but you will get there far faster than a 9-5 kaiser MD.
Red yeast rice did wonders for my cholesterol. It is where statins came from in the first place.
The wikipedia article for "Naturopathy" doesn't inspire confidence.
>Naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is a form of alternative medicine that employs an array of pseudoscientific practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", or promoting "self-healing". The ideology and methods of naturopathy are based on vitalism and folk medicine, rather than evidence-based medicine (EBM).[2] Naturopathic practitioners generally recommend against following modern medical practices, including but not limited to medical testing, drugs, vaccinations, and surgery.[3][4][5][6] Instead, naturopathic practice relies on unscientific notions, often leading naturopaths to diagnoses and treatments that have no factual merit.[7][8]
>Naturopathy is considered by the medical profession to be ineffective and harmful, raising ethical issues about its practice.[7][9][10] In addition to condemnations and criticism from the medical community, such as the American Cancer Society,[11] naturopaths have repeatedly been denounced as and accused of being charlatans and practicing quackery.[7][12][13][14][15][16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturopathy
elaborate?
>Naturopaths have been recommending a low sugar diet for like 30 years. So is that quackery?
I think the saying "even a broken clock is right twice a day" applies here.
Why even bother having a scientific advisory committee then?
Once tobacco advertising was suppressed/banned, the media didn’t defend them anymore...
I wonder if anyone actually thinks everyone would stop if these guidelines told us to, especially given our ongoing lack of compliance.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25572471 [1] https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-1...
There's way too much fucking money being made to cut these industries off by even a percent.