3 ms·

This seems like false equivalence. Has refined sugar ever not been considered harmful in the last few decades? I'm not aware of any controversy here.

by psyc 10y ago

taeric 10y ago
You'd be surprised. In general, I think sugar has been known as something that you had to consume "in moderation." But, this is akin to the false belief that moderation can fix most any problems. My favorite example is a survey that asked people which one saved more money, turning the lights out an hour earlier every day, or switching to higher efficiency lights. The vast majority thought turning lights out earlier would have higher impact, which is incredibly wrong. So, the same with sugar for many right now. Many think that they can get by with more "moderation" and skipping a desert.
- mistermann 10y ago
  > The vast majority thought turning lights out earlier would have higher impact, which is incredibly wrong. Is it? Based on what timeframe and power cost? When I was last light bulb shopping it seemed to me not upgrading was more cost effective < 5 years at least.
  - taeric 10y ago
    If you add cost of bulbs, it gets a little closer. However, energy costs are laughable in the difference. From a sixty to hundred watt bulb to a nine to fourteen is a huge difference.
    - mistermann 10y ago
      You're right: 60 watts x 24 hrs/day = 1440 watt hrs = 1.44 kwh/day, @ $.10/kwh = $.15 / day $5/LED bulb / $.15/day = 33 days to pay off
      - taeric 10y ago
        And to be fair on these calculations, I was really just comparing to "turning off an hour early every day." I don't think many people leave lights on 24 hours a day. But, assuming a 60w from 8 to 7 hours a day of use, saves 60w (480 down to 420) a day. Leaving a CFL on for the full 8 hours uses only 112. So, with a savings of 368, is is almost 6 times the savings of an hour's light. Now, I also confess I have not looked into these much lately. I just find it interesting how so many of us assume that "moderation" is more effective than other factors. Even when seeing the difference in clear numbers (60 to 14) indicates a huge gulf that moderation would have to overcome. We have a similar problem at our house, where I've now calibrated the other direction. Rather than be concerned about keeping a window closed, I'm more interested in a better heating/cooling system. Edit: Forgot my point at the top. Converting from energy costs to actual dollars, it can be seen that the cost of early CFL/LED lightbulbs was the dominate factor.
        mistermann 10y ago
        It's also interesting that manufacturers have neglected this angle of looking at it. I'm one of those personalities that over-optimizes trivial things, so when I'm shopping for light bulbs I'm wanting to maximize my financial return even though it's a rounding error. Every LED light bulb manufacturer seems to use the "lasts for 25 years" (or whatever) marketing approach - that completely fails on me, my immediate reaction is: "sure, but what am I paying for that?", and my reaction was strong enough that it even prevented me from doing the math it would seem. At the end of the day I ended up buying some LED's to try them, and I liked the quality enough that I went and bought a whole bunch more, and will 100% do all future replacements. It's interesting, if LED's truly last as long as advertised, what's the long term business model?
        taeric 10y ago
        I love that question! I honestly have no idea. I do think that LED bulbs are a lot more fragile than they advertise. Sure, they won't break as often as old style, but neither will they last 25 years in many cases. (Specifically, they are a lot more intolerant of power fluctuations, if I recall.) My hunch is they are mainly banking on upgrades to technology driving new purchases. Consider, your computer will probably last longer than you will keep using it. Difference is computer manufacturers don't bother with advertising how long they could last. Also, I should confess I don't know where I was on the original survey. I probably had the wrong intuition, but seeing the question asked would tip me to it being wrong. I can't remember my answer at the time. :( Finally, my guess on why they advertise the long life in stores may be because they are keying off emotions attached to home ownership. Home owners like to think of their house lasting a long time. So, home stores like anything that strengthens that.
bogomipz 10y ago
I don't think the OP was implying that refined sugar might not be problematic but rather this trend of demonizing a single food substance disproportionately. By giving outsize attention to a single substance it obscures the fact that portion control, a balanced diet and regular exercise are the real fixes to recent downward health trends. These are of course much harder to implement because they require a larger commitment then just avoiding a single entity whether it be salt, sugar, carbs, red meat etc or whatever is the current single object of demonization. Making permanent lifestyle changes is hard much harder than simply avoiding a single dietary element.

This seems like false equivalence. Has refined sugar ever not been considered harmful in the last few decades? I'm not aware of any controversy here.

by psyc 10y ago

This seems like false equivalence. Has refined sugar ever not been considered harmful in the last few decades? I'm not aware of any controversy here.

taeric 10y ago

You'd be surprised. In general, I think sugar has been known as something that you had to consume "in moderation." But, this is akin to the false belief that moderation can fix most any problems. My favorite example is a survey that asked people which one saved more money, turning the lights out an hour earlier every day, or switching to higher efficiency lights. The vast majority thought turning lights out earlier would have higher impact, which is incredibly wrong. So, the same with sugar for many right now. Many think that they can get by with more "moderation" and skipping a desert.

mistermann 10y ago
> The vast majority thought turning lights out earlier would have higher impact, which is incredibly wrong. Is it? Based on what timeframe and power cost? When I was last light bulb shopping it seemed to me not upgrading was more cost effective < 5 years at least.
- taeric 10y ago
  If you add cost of bulbs, it gets a little closer. However, energy costs are laughable in the difference. From a sixty to hundred watt bulb to a nine to fourteen is a huge difference.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    You're right: 60 watts x 24 hrs/day = 1440 watt hrs = 1.44 kwh/day, @ $.10/kwh = $.15 / day $5/LED bulb / $.15/day = 33 days to pay off
    - taeric 10y ago
      And to be fair on these calculations, I was really just comparing to "turning off an hour early every day." I don't think many people leave lights on 24 hours a day. But, assuming a 60w from 8 to 7 hours a day of use, saves 60w (480 down to 420) a day. Leaving a CFL on for the full 8 hours uses only 112. So, with a savings of 368, is is almost 6 times the savings of an hour's light. Now, I also confess I have not looked into these much lately. I just find it interesting how so many of us assume that "moderation" is more effective than other factors. Even when seeing the difference in clear numbers (60 to 14) indicates a huge gulf that moderation would have to overcome. We have a similar problem at our house, where I've now calibrated the other direction. Rather than be concerned about keeping a window closed, I'm more interested in a better heating/cooling system. Edit: Forgot my point at the top. Converting from energy costs to actual dollars, it can be seen that the cost of early CFL/LED lightbulbs was the dominate factor.
      - mistermann 10y ago
        It's also interesting that manufacturers have neglected this angle of looking at it. I'm one of those personalities that over-optimizes trivial things, so when I'm shopping for light bulbs I'm wanting to maximize my financial return even though it's a rounding error. Every LED light bulb manufacturer seems to use the "lasts for 25 years" (or whatever) marketing approach - that completely fails on me, my immediate reaction is: "sure, but what am I paying for that?", and my reaction was strong enough that it even prevented me from doing the math it would seem. At the end of the day I ended up buying some LED's to try them, and I liked the quality enough that I went and bought a whole bunch more, and will 100% do all future replacements. It's interesting, if LED's truly last as long as advertised, what's the long term business model?
        taeric 10y ago
        I love that question! I honestly have no idea. I do think that LED bulbs are a lot more fragile than they advertise. Sure, they won't break as often as old style, but neither will they last 25 years in many cases. (Specifically, they are a lot more intolerant of power fluctuations, if I recall.) My hunch is they are mainly banking on upgrades to technology driving new purchases. Consider, your computer will probably last longer than you will keep using it. Difference is computer manufacturers don't bother with advertising how long they could last. Also, I should confess I don't know where I was on the original survey. I probably had the wrong intuition, but seeing the question asked would tip me to it being wrong. I can't remember my answer at the time. :( Finally, my guess on why they advertise the long life in stores may be because they are keying off emotions attached to home ownership. Home owners like to think of their house lasting a long time. So, home stores like anything that strengthens that.

bogomipz 10y ago

I don't think the OP was implying that refined sugar might not be problematic but rather this trend of demonizing a single food substance disproportionately. By giving outsize attention to a single substance it obscures the fact that portion control, a balanced diet and regular exercise are the real fixes to recent downward health trends. These are of course much harder to implement because they require a larger commitment then just avoiding a single entity whether it be salt, sugar, carbs, red meat etc or whatever is the current single object of demonization. Making permanent lifestyle changes is hard much harder than simply avoiding a single dietary element.