5 ms·

The most effective labels we could have are "Added sugar" and "Added corn starch". If you show exactly how much extra sugar and corn starch you're consuming, i

by shawn 8y ago

The most effective labels we could have are "Added sugar" and "Added corn starch". If you show exactly how much extra sugar and corn starch you're consuming, it's much harder to get fat by accident.

jonknee 8y ago
Do you mean added corn syrup? Cornstarch is useful in the kitchen, but isn't super common in processed food (I assume they have better thickeners!).
- shawn 8y ago
  Eh, if we're being precise: dextrose, maltodextrin, pretty much anything that's -ose or dex-, corn starch, corn syrup, added sugar, wheat, rye, barley, oats, corn, legumes, dairy. I cut all of those and ended up losing weight without exercising. YMMV. A decent rule of thumb is that if a 5yo can pronounce all the ingredients, it's probably ok.
Latty 8y ago
Calorie counts are all that really matters when it comes to "getting fat" - while obviously that doesn't mean healthy - sugar isn't any more relevant to getting fat than anything else. Now, there are easy wins from sugars - particularly if you are drinking lots of regular soft drinks, you can reduce your calorie intake relatively easily by cutting them out, but everyone's diet is different.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  >sugar isn't any more relevant to getting fat than anything else. That's not quite true. High sugar intake results in an insulin spike, which in turn results in more fat being stored than would be had you eaten the same number of calories in the form of e.g. protein. Sugar also results in more net calories per calorie as it takes very little energy to digest. From a behavioral perspective (this matters!), sugar does not leave you feeling full. You can talk calories all day, but when it comes to weight loss you have to factor in how people actually work. A full person is less likely to overeat than a hungry one.
wahern 8y ago
Calorie count gets you most of the benefit with a small fraction of the cost--in compliance as well as in information overload. California's Proposition 65 is a great example of how detail and context matter. The carcinogen warnings are so ubiquitous that they've become meaningless if not counterproductive. Don't overlook the fact that people aren't stupid. A sugar label for soda or ice cream has little value. A sugar label for a burger bun is almost equally useless in terms of epidemiological impact because of the relatively minimal amount, especially once you consider how it would effects the signal/noise ratio of all mandatory disclosures taken together. You also have to consider other avenues for messaging. What was most effective in reducing smoking (directly or indirectly--i.e. shifting the culture): labels on cigarette packs, early interventions, or public marketing campaigns. I would argue the latter.
derekp7 8y ago
I think a good proxy for what you should and should not be eating is how much you enjoy the food. If you really enjoy it a lot, then it is easy to over do it. However if it is mostly palatable, but doesn't give you that feeling of bliss (compare salad without dressing vs. pizza or chocolate cake), then you won't be necessarily going back for seconds/thirds once full. Of course, this can be mitigated if the food has a negative feedback cycle. I'm that way with shellfish, after a certain amount it becomes nasty tasting. Same with a good steak, after I've eaten enough I can't imagine shoving more down. But with pizza, I always go back for that second or third slice.

by shawn 8y ago

The most effective labels we could have are "Added sugar" and "Added corn starch". If you show exactly how much extra sugar and corn starch you're consuming, it's much harder to get fat by accident.

jonknee 8y ago

Do you mean added corn syrup? Cornstarch is useful in the kitchen, but isn't super common in processed food (I assume they have better thickeners!).

shawn 8y ago
Eh, if we're being precise: dextrose, maltodextrin, pretty much anything that's -ose or dex-, corn starch, corn syrup, added sugar, wheat, rye, barley, oats, corn, legumes, dairy. I cut all of those and ended up losing weight without exercising. YMMV. A decent rule of thumb is that if a 5yo can pronounce all the ingredients, it's probably ok.

Latty 8y ago

Calorie counts are all that really matters when it comes to "getting fat" - while obviously that doesn't mean healthy - sugar isn't any more relevant to getting fat than anything else. Now, there are easy wins from sugars - particularly if you are drinking lots of regular soft drinks, you can reduce your calorie intake relatively easily by cutting them out, but everyone's diet is different.

EpicEng 8y ago
>sugar isn't any more relevant to getting fat than anything else. That's not quite true. High sugar intake results in an insulin spike, which in turn results in more fat being stored than would be had you eaten the same number of calories in the form of e.g. protein. Sugar also results in more net calories per calorie as it takes very little energy to digest. From a behavioral perspective (this matters!), sugar does not leave you feeling full. You can talk calories all day, but when it comes to weight loss you have to factor in how people actually work. A full person is less likely to overeat than a hungry one.

wahern 8y ago

Calorie count gets you most of the benefit with a small fraction of the cost--in compliance as well as in information overload. California's Proposition 65 is a great example of how detail and context matter. The carcinogen warnings are so ubiquitous that they've become meaningless if not counterproductive. Don't overlook the fact that people aren't stupid. A sugar label for soda or ice cream has little value. A sugar label for a burger bun is almost equally useless in terms of epidemiological impact because of the relatively minimal amount, especially once you consider how it would effects the signal/noise ratio of all mandatory disclosures taken together. You also have to consider other avenues for messaging. What was most effective in reducing smoking (directly or indirectly--i.e. shifting the culture): labels on cigarette packs, early interventions, or public marketing campaigns. I would argue the latter.

derekp7 8y ago

I think a good proxy for what you should and should not be eating is how much you enjoy the food. If you really enjoy it a lot, then it is easy to over do it. However if it is mostly palatable, but doesn't give you that feeling of bliss (compare salad without dressing vs. pizza or chocolate cake), then you won't be necessarily going back for seconds/thirds once full. Of course, this can be mitigated if the food has a negative feedback cycle. I'm that way with shellfish, after a certain amount it becomes nasty tasting. Same with a good steak, after I've eaten enough I can't imagine shoving more down. But with pizza, I always go back for that second or third slice.