3 ms·

This has become increasingly vivid for me since having a child. I've only been "health conscious" for half a decade or so, and went sugarless for at least a ye

by croon 8y ago

This has become increasingly vivid for me since having a child. I've only been "health conscious" for half a decade or so, and went sugarless for at least a year of that, but got off that mainly for social reasons and difficulties finding food when not at home. But to the point: We have thus far made all her food from scratch, and would never in a million years entertain the idea of feeding her soda, cookies, or ice cream, when she's already super happy with cinnamon oatmeal with mashed apple or brown rice carrot chicken with cumin and black pepper. Because why not? That stuff is super tasty. What's weird and really scary is realizing the effect sugar has on your own psyche. I know sugar only do bad things to my body in the long term, and yet I stuff my face with a chocolate bar for the immediate euphoria. Stepping back and reviewing the ingrained cultural tradition of sugar becomes fascinating when we consider it only does harm, and it's extremely addictive. If we (hyperbole, I know, or is it?) substitute heroin for it, and then discuss it like we do sugar? "It's his/her birthday, we should celebrate it with a cake (heroin). Just this once" "Heroin is fine in moderation, if you otherwise live healthy and eat well". "I only use heroin sometimes, and I'm in control of it." I mean, I guess all of those can be true, but it's keeping something really bad in your life that probably takes a heavy mental toll, rather than just avoiding it. And I'm as guilty as anyone. And I'm sure my daughter will be exposed in time regardless of what we as parents do. Maybe it's not as dire as I portray it, but does it have any redeeming qualities, at all?

mseebach 8y ago
The irony is that heroin probably is fine in moderation (provided that it's clean product, known concentration etc). And sugar certainly is fine in moderation. We're relatively mature and thoughtful people. We can be cognisant of the fact that we, and especially children, eat too much sugar, without going radical fundamentalist and cutting out every last gram of sugar from everywhere. Yes, there shouldn't be added sugar in everyday meals, no, having a cake for a birthday isn't bad.
- croon 8y ago
  You are probably right, and that this is the rational and pragmatic approach, but for sake of argument: Isn't this a rationalization borne from the premise that sugar already is everywhere? If we were discussing something not yet introduced into our lives, would your conclusions be the same? Like starting now celebrating a birthday with... huffing paint? Smoking a cigarette as a non-smoker? Sugar, like some drugs, isn't particularly appealing the first time you try it, depending on the delivery method. Or more statistically probable, the first time after a period of absence. We get used to it, and then we "crave" it.
  - mseebach 8y ago
    > Isn't this a rationalization borne from the premise that sugar already is everywhere? I don't think our current societies' rush to outlaw everything that's unhealthy if used immoderately is a particular high ideal. If weed was introduced into our lives today, it would be made illegal, and it was, and nothing good came out of that. The fact that we'd probably outlaw sugar tells us more about the quality of our political systems than it does about sugar, in my opinion. Sugar and sweets has been a fixture of life for hundreds of years, but two major things have happened: cheap, processed food, which of course is a boon especially to poorer families, but which has way too much sugar to make it taste of anything, and a radical transition in modern lives away from hard, physical work. As long as you burn it off again through physical work, sugar isn't terribly bad for you. It's when you consume hundreds of calories more than you burn every day sustained that the wheels come off.
    - croon 8y ago
      > I don't think our current societies' rush to outlaw everything that's unhealthy if used immoderately is a particular high ideal. If weed was introduced into our lives today, it would be made illegal, and it was, and nothing good came out of that. The fact that we'd probably outlaw sugar tells us more about the quality of our political systems than it does about sugar, in my opinion. No one suggested outlawing anything. > As long as you burn it off again through physical work, sugar isn't terribly bad for you. It's when you consume hundreds of calories more than you burn every day sustained that the wheels come off. There are (at least) some adverse effects: https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(18)31606-4/fulltext https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(18)31606-4/ful...
- gerardnll 8y ago
  As I said, WHO recommends free sugars to be less than 10% of daily calorie intake. And suggests going down to 5%. Source: http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/guidelines/sugar_i.. http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/guidelines/sugar_i.... An adult that takes 2000 calories, should not take more than 25g of free sugars. Now tell me if it's easy for you to not go over the limit. Free sugars are not needed. The body already takes sugars from vegetables and fruits. That is the problem, 'moderation' is what the industry sells and that's what we keep repeating every day. Free sugars found in processed foods are NOT NEEDED to live at all. Moderation in this context means taking something certainly bad for you occasionally like heroin or alcohol. Do what you want, but don't lie yourself.

by croon 8y ago

mseebach 8y ago

The irony is that heroin probably is fine in moderation (provided that it's clean product, known concentration etc). And sugar certainly is fine in moderation. We're relatively mature and thoughtful people. We can be cognisant of the fact that we, and especially children, eat too much sugar, without going radical fundamentalist and cutting out every last gram of sugar from everywhere. Yes, there shouldn't be added sugar in everyday meals, no, having a cake for a birthday isn't bad.

croon 8y ago
You are probably right, and that this is the rational and pragmatic approach, but for sake of argument: Isn't this a rationalization borne from the premise that sugar already is everywhere? If we were discussing something not yet introduced into our lives, would your conclusions be the same? Like starting now celebrating a birthday with... huffing paint? Smoking a cigarette as a non-smoker? Sugar, like some drugs, isn't particularly appealing the first time you try it, depending on the delivery method. Or more statistically probable, the first time after a period of absence. We get used to it, and then we "crave" it.
- mseebach 8y ago
  > Isn't this a rationalization borne from the premise that sugar already is everywhere? I don't think our current societies' rush to outlaw everything that's unhealthy if used immoderately is a particular high ideal. If weed was introduced into our lives today, it would be made illegal, and it was, and nothing good came out of that. The fact that we'd probably outlaw sugar tells us more about the quality of our political systems than it does about sugar, in my opinion. Sugar and sweets has been a fixture of life for hundreds of years, but two major things have happened: cheap, processed food, which of course is a boon especially to poorer families, but which has way too much sugar to make it taste of anything, and a radical transition in modern lives away from hard, physical work. As long as you burn it off again through physical work, sugar isn't terribly bad for you. It's when you consume hundreds of calories more than you burn every day sustained that the wheels come off.
  - croon 8y ago
    > I don't think our current societies' rush to outlaw everything that's unhealthy if used immoderately is a particular high ideal. If weed was introduced into our lives today, it would be made illegal, and it was, and nothing good came out of that. The fact that we'd probably outlaw sugar tells us more about the quality of our political systems than it does about sugar, in my opinion. No one suggested outlawing anything. > As long as you burn it off again through physical work, sugar isn't terribly bad for you. It's when you consume hundreds of calories more than you burn every day sustained that the wheels come off. There are (at least) some adverse effects: https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(18)31606-4/fulltext https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(18)31606-4/ful...
gerardnll 8y ago
As I said, WHO recommends free sugars to be less than 10% of daily calorie intake. And suggests going down to 5%. Source: http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/guidelines/sugar_i.. http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/guidelines/sugar_i.... An adult that takes 2000 calories, should not take more than 25g of free sugars. Now tell me if it's easy for you to not go over the limit. Free sugars are not needed. The body already takes sugars from vegetables and fruits. That is the problem, 'moderation' is what the industry sells and that's what we keep repeating every day. Free sugars found in processed foods are NOT NEEDED to live at all. Moderation in this context means taking something certainly bad for you occasionally like heroin or alcohol. Do what you want, but don't lie yourself.