4 ms·

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.

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
    > Sugar and sweets has been a fixture of life for hundreds of years, but two major things have happened: cheap, processed food, ... As long as you burn it off again through physical work, sugar isn't terribly bad for you. That is an opinion based on 0 studies and ignoring WHO and many other studies that show free sugars are bad for health. Then eat free sugar and call me when you get diabetes. Instead of eating healthy, whole fruits or vegetables you are accustoming your palate to sweet taste, generating rejection for healthy foods. To be honest, I don't see anything good about (high/ultra) processed foods. The only truth here is that yes, ADDED/FREE sugars are something new, which only shows how unnecessary have been for the human race to live.
- wilsonnb2 8y ago
  Plenty of people smoke cigars on occasion, often in a celebratory manner. As far as I know, huffing paint (or pretty much anything else people use in a similar way) can kill you the first time you do it. It's a rather dangerous way to get high. Anyways, there's nothing wrong with celebrating a birthday with sugar and it has nothing to do with it being a widespread tradition that's already in our lives. It's because sugar has basically no adverse effects in small doses and it isn't as addictive as heroin or nicotine.
  - gerardnll 8y ago
    You are not getting it. Added/free sugars are in PLENTY of foods and beverages not only a birthday cake. Don't you take a coke more than once a year? chocolate bars? cookies? Sauces? Cereals? Coffee (starbucks and similars)? food for babies... It's everywhere. And here, we are only talking about added/free sugars and not palm oil, refined flours, in general, bad quality ingredients (but cheap for the food industry). Eat whole fruits, vegetables, dried fruits, some meat, fish, etc... that's the easiest rule, go back to what we ate just a hundred years ago. Yes, you can take a cigarette, a beer, wine, but just be conscious that you are not making yourself a favor. And.. just one question, what if you find pleasure in good things instead of bad things that you crave for on friday night, etc...? We use drugs, alcohol, sugar, cigarettes to avoid stress, thinking/pain... what if we face the issues instead of avoiding confronting them with plenty of addictions? We also have sport to generate endorphins, the natural way of lowering stress levels...
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.

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
  > Sugar and sweets has been a fixture of life for hundreds of years, but two major things have happened: cheap, processed food, ... As long as you burn it off again through physical work, sugar isn't terribly bad for you. That is an opinion based on 0 studies and ignoring WHO and many other studies that show free sugars are bad for health. Then eat free sugar and call me when you get diabetes. Instead of eating healthy, whole fruits or vegetables you are accustoming your palate to sweet taste, generating rejection for healthy foods. To be honest, I don't see anything good about (high/ultra) processed foods. The only truth here is that yes, ADDED/FREE sugars are something new, which only shows how unnecessary have been for the human race to live.
wilsonnb2 8y ago
Plenty of people smoke cigars on occasion, often in a celebratory manner. As far as I know, huffing paint (or pretty much anything else people use in a similar way) can kill you the first time you do it. It's a rather dangerous way to get high. Anyways, there's nothing wrong with celebrating a birthday with sugar and it has nothing to do with it being a widespread tradition that's already in our lives. It's because sugar has basically no adverse effects in small doses and it isn't as addictive as heroin or nicotine.
- gerardnll 8y ago
  You are not getting it. Added/free sugars are in PLENTY of foods and beverages not only a birthday cake. Don't you take a coke more than once a year? chocolate bars? cookies? Sauces? Cereals? Coffee (starbucks and similars)? food for babies... It's everywhere. And here, we are only talking about added/free sugars and not palm oil, refined flours, in general, bad quality ingredients (but cheap for the food industry). Eat whole fruits, vegetables, dried fruits, some meat, fish, etc... that's the easiest rule, go back to what we ate just a hundred years ago. Yes, you can take a cigarette, a beer, wine, but just be conscious that you are not making yourself a favor. And.. just one question, what if you find pleasure in good things instead of bad things that you crave for on friday night, etc...? We use drugs, alcohol, sugar, cigarettes to avoid stress, thinking/pain... what if we face the issues instead of avoiding confronting them with plenty of addictions? We also have sport to generate endorphins, the natural way of lowering stress levels...

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.