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: 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!