3 ms·

> What if it was the contrary? What if it was fat (beyond trans fat) that was taxed and regulated based on BS studies? I don't understand your posit. Are you s

by croon 10y ago

> What if it was the contrary? What if it was fat (beyond trans fat) that was taxed and regulated based on BS studies? I don't understand your posit. Are you saying sugar would be taxed based on BS studies? The topic of discussion is that older studies have downplayed the detrimental effect of sugar, while upplaying the role of fat. If sugar was taxed it would be according to current studies. If fat was taxed it would not be. Is your question a thought experiment or what are you saying?

harmegido 10y ago
She's saying that how can you be so sure that sugar is the culprit? 30 years ago, people were very sure that fat was the culprit. I actually do personally think that sugar is a main driver of these problems, but I get her point.
- kardashian007 10y ago
  Fat is 9 kcal/g, while protein and simple carbs are about 4 kcal/g. And there is a pathway to absorb complex lipid rather than going through the effort of breaking them down. The nuances and complexities come in because of individual genetics, state of health and a myriad of interactions between the complexity of foods and their numerous and unpredictable interactions with a constantly changing system. In order to get a better picture of health and lifestyle consequences will require close to 24x7 monitoring of many parameters (quantified self). So, for example, it may be possible to find out allergies and almost allergies, interactions before they fully occur and inflammation promotion/reduction properties of lifestyle choices. Add software and deep learning, and there are almost endless possibilities for health and lifestyle micro- and macro-optimizations.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
raverbashing 10y ago
> downplayed the detrimental effect of sugar, while upplaying the role of fat. Yes, and imagine if regulation was done based on these wrong studies, the harm it would have caused You would have regulated people out of good health (which is basically what corn subsidies do) People sometimes are too quick to favour regulation

by croon 10y ago

harmegido 10y ago

She's saying that how can you be so sure that sugar is the culprit? 30 years ago, people were very sure that fat was the culprit. I actually do personally think that sugar is a main driver of these problems, but I get her point.

kardashian007 10y ago
Fat is 9 kcal/g, while protein and simple carbs are about 4 kcal/g. And there is a pathway to absorb complex lipid rather than going through the effort of breaking them down. The nuances and complexities come in because of individual genetics, state of health and a myriad of interactions between the complexity of foods and their numerous and unpredictable interactions with a constantly changing system. In order to get a better picture of health and lifestyle consequences will require close to 24x7 monitoring of many parameters (quantified self). So, for example, it may be possible to find out allergies and almost allergies, interactions before they fully occur and inflammation promotion/reduction properties of lifestyle choices. Add software and deep learning, and there are almost endless possibilities for health and lifestyle micro- and macro-optimizations.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

raverbashing 10y ago

> downplayed the detrimental effect of sugar, while upplaying the role of fat. Yes, and imagine if regulation was done based on these wrong studies, the harm it would have caused You would have regulated people out of good health (which is basically what corn subsidies do) People sometimes are too quick to favour regulation