SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the sweets-for-my-sweet,-sugar-for-my-honey-The-Drifters-1961 dept.
Lustig, the maverick scientist, has long argued that sugar is as harmful as cocaine or tobacco – and that the food industry has been adding too much of it to our meals for too long.
If you have any interest at all in diet, obesity, public health, diabetes, epidemiology, your own health or that of other people, you will probably be aware that sugar, not fat, is now considered the devil's food. Dr Robert Lustig's book, Fat Chance: The Hidden Truth About Sugar, Obesity and Disease ( http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jan/25/fat-chance-robert-lustig-review ), for all that it sounds like a Dan Brown novel, is the difference between vaguely knowing something is probably true, and being told it as a fact. Lustig has spent the past 16 years treating childhood obesity. His meta-analysis of the cutting-edge research on large-cohort studies of what sugar does to populations across the world, alongside his own clinical observations, has him credited with starting the war on sugar. When it reaches the enemy status of tobacco, it will be because of Lustig.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/aug/24/robert-lustig-sugar-poison
I think moderation is the key. What do you think ?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:38PM
The inevitable diabetes and obesity should be punishment enough. Especially if it takes 15 years off their lifespan.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:30PM
Punishment, yes, but it isn't deterrent enough for most people. The weak-willed want their fix, and they want it now! #YOLO #BBW.
If ailments caused by abuse of sugar (eg. obesity) were not covered by any medical insurance, or catered for in any legislation (eg. no legal requirement to provide wider doors or larger seats), then perhaps the problem could sort itself out naturally, without significant cost to those who don't abuse such drugs.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday August 27 2014, @02:49PM
"then perhaps the problem could sort itself out naturally"
An analogy where it only kinda sorta works that way is smoking.
I wouldn't bet on it working as a strategy with sugar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:35PM
I've been trying to understand how to reconcile the health dangers of the obesity epidemic with the social niceties of "fat acceptance" and "body positivity" for a while now. Social pressure has been seen to work well in getting a large percentage of the population to quit smoking in just a couple generations. But using the same type of social pressure to help curb obesity is too mean, apparently. Sometimes what's good for you doesn't necessarily feel good...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:59PM
There's a big difference between smoking and eating too much. If you smoke when not alone, you threaten the health of others. If you eat too much, you only threaten your own health. Threatening your own health should not be punishable.
Otherwise you'll find e.g. your favourite sports on the forbidden list, due to the high risk of injuries; just stick to the small list of proven safe sports, or face punishment!
Or think of sitting on the computer too long in the evening. You should long be asleep! That's unhealthy! You must be punished!
And don't even think of a long new year's eve party. No, it doesn't matter that you only do it once per year. Long parties are bad for your health, and therefore forbidden!
Oh, and of course alcohol is unhealthy. So bring back prohibition!
OTOH, the Mafia will like the idea of forbidding sugar ... imagine the money they could make with smuggled Coke [the beverage, the other one they already make big money with] and candy bars.
(Score: 1) by NeoNormal on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:06PM
The problem is that unhealthy people are often a burden on others, ie, society as a whole.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:21PM
This is offset by the shorter time period that the burden hangs around.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by cafebabe on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:24PM
I researched this a while back. I found that a BMI [Body Mass Index] increase of five led to a life expectancy decrease of 1.5 years. I was surprised that it was so small. However, it doesn't take into account the decreased quality of life.
Anecdotally, I've seen that people tend to CTD [Circle The Drain] [bbc.co.uk] when their knees fail. Obese, sedentary people don't often get into situations where this happens. However, if it does happen, they're screwed.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by tynin on Wednesday August 27 2014, @10:24PM
Thanks for that article you linked to with CTD. I think it would make a fine SN submission in its own right.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Wednesday August 27 2014, @06:48PM
There's a big difference between smoking and eating too much. If you smoke when not alone, you threaten the health of others.
Yes there's that difference. But there's also the similarity that people don't take the risks seriously until it happens to them. By which time it is too late - diabetes and heart disease are for life just as cancer is. This in't an individual failure, but is systematic - it's a function of the normal way the brain treats risk - and so individuals shouldn't be blamed.
Oh, and of course alcohol is unhealthy. So bring back prohibition!
Actually the evidence is that the first alcoholic drink drink of the day is positive for health, due to the antioxidants. That may vary depending on the type of drink. But a glass of wine a day for sure is a good and healthy thing.
As to the free choice thing when eating, actually most of the decisions are made by the processed foods industry. People COULD make decisions to override this by for example cutting out processed foods from their diet, but most don't. It's not that they decide to eat processed foods and be unhealthy - they just don't decide at all.
Also there is nothing more unacceptable about governments making decisions about the contents of processed foods then corporations making those decisions.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 1) by VanessaE on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:54PM
Obesity, yes, but haven't scientists already determined that sugar isn't what causes diabetes?
(Score: 2) by fnj on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:05PM
Of course it doesn't.
Type 1 diabetes is caused by a loss of insulin-producing cells in the pancreas, usually via an auto-immune pathology.
Type 2 diabetes is caused by the development of insulin resistance, sometimes caused by reduced insulin secretion.
Both types are affected by a myriad of factors, including diet, but "eating sugar" DOES NOT "cause diabetes". By the way, the liver MAKES glucose. Good luck telling it to stop.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cafebabe on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:46PM
I read a detailed fringe theory that insulin resistance occurs in response to systemic candida infection. The outline of the argument is that candida likes an environment which is warm, dark, wet, acidic, anaerobic and sugary. There's not much that can be done about being warm, dark and wet but the remainder are influenced by diet and exercise.
I've also seen a more mainstream theory [bbc.co.uk] that equal proportions of fat and sugar are the most addictive and the most likely to cause obesity.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday August 27 2014, @10:21PM
You have hit upon the big issue here that most people don't really understand. Sugar and fat are addictive. One of my many addictions is sugar. I go through the symptoms of withdrawal when I make an attempt to keep it out of my diet—headaches, the shakes, extreme cravings, some depression, anxiety—not unlike drug withdrawal or alcohol although not quite as extreme. No DT's, for example. Addictions are permanent things; an addict is never completely rid of them. They have to be managed through the making of life-altering decisions. In AA and other Twelve Step program, it is said that addiction is a spiritual disease, and in my own experience this is certainly true. The idea of willpower being all that is necessary is a load of crap. No amount of willpower is enough to overcome an addition.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:14PM
Get your thyroid checked. "Sugar withdrawal" is a common symptom; ie. you only feel good when you're consuming plenty of sugar, because the whole body and especially the brain are chronically energy-deprived, and sugar is an instant fix. Also occurs as "food fixes my depression".
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday September 17 2014, @12:38AM
My thyroid is fine. I've had it checked.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday September 17 2014, @01:46AM
So far so good, but be aware the common TSH test is a very crude indicator, and can be entirely wrong. It's better to diagnose by symptoms, of which the list is long and sometimes bizarre (eg. swelling in the tip of the nose). Sugar craving is a strong redflag.
I have Hashimoto's thyroiditis. I've had to become a pocket expert on the topic in sheer self defense. Thank ghu for the Journal of Endocrinology, from which I now go to the doctor armed with printouts.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday September 17 2014, @02:49AM
I have been a sugar and carbohydrate addict since I was a child. It has nothing to do with any abnormal biology such as a thyroid condition. It has everything to do with coping with the pain from emotionally distant parents, a emotionally abusive mother, being smarter than nearly everyone else in school, regular teasing, and sexual trauma courtesy of the neighborhood pedophile. PTSD is nasty.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday September 17 2014, @04:44AM
That's seriously ugly :( Hope things get better for you.
But (based on long and acute observation) I would still posit that =how= we cope is largely fueled by biochemistry. Someone with different levels of critical hormones, enzymes, and whatever might have reacted by going forth and breaking shit instead. Long-term persistence of PTSD is probably due to an imbalance which prevents recovery. Frex, reduced processing of stress metabolites, so once made, you're kinda stuck with 'em.
The ability to recover from stress, and its inverse, are very definitely inherited in dogs, which indicates a root in biology rather than psychology. Interestingly, those unable to recover from stress have a high incidence of issues like epilepsy and exercise-induced collapse, and I'm beginning to suspect the MDR1 gene as well.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.