5 ms·

>I think what people choose to eat is extremely personal to them. I'm glad you made a lifestyle choice that benefitted you, but I would shudder the thought of l

>I think what people choose to eat is extremely personal to them. I'm glad you made a lifestyle choice that benefitted you, but I would shudder the thought of living in a society where the government tells you exactly what you can and can't eat. This canned "the government shouldn't choose what I eat" argument is reductionist to the point of deficiency at best, and disingenuous at worse. The fact is an unregulated free market forces choices on us no different than government regulation. The quality and type of food a consumer has access to is highly dependent on market decisions — that is the food demanded by other consumers — not individual decisions. The problem is consumers in the US at large are either ignorant about health/nutrition or just plain don't prioritize the future (sustainable health) over the present (what I'm eating was iteratively designed in a lab to maximize my immediate dopamine hit). Good regulation isn't binary. You can regulate the food industry to protect consumers from predatory/harmful practices (such as engineering food so that consumers overeat by "growth hacking" food via salt/sugar/fat in order to drive revenue growth) while still allowing an abundance of dietary choices. >FWIW, I've eaten processed, fried, GMO foods my whole life (and consume fast food drive thru at least 5-6 times a week) and have no health issues whatsoever. But I try to not eat to excess and I exercise regularly. Some people smoke two packs a day and die at the ripe old age of 100. The vast majority of smokers die significantly earlier than average. Much like you wouldn't consider a lottery ticket a wise investment even if it pays off, you shouldn't interpret your personal health and dietary experience to much other than good fortune. Your experience is an outlier in the face of mountains of data that tell a different and honestly quite depressing story. Lastly, I know sometimes tone can be misinterpreted easily in text. So if my comment came off as brash or an attack etc, please re-read it with a polite and friendly tone in mind. I'm passionate about this topic because I want to help.

chrisco255 7y ago
Don't equivocate eating food to smoking. There is no evidence that someone who consumes a healthy level of calories (whether those calories are wheat-based, meat-based, potato-based, etc) are putting themselves on any kind of path to cancer or heart disease. Carbs are carbs. Protein is protein. Fat is fat. Sure, some types of foods (including fried foods) have excessive calories for the average American lifestyle. That's been known for decades. But there is no evidence that calories from broccoli are any less or more cancerous than calories from potatoes or bread or vegetable oil. My experience is not an outlier. This guy has eaten 30,000 Big Macs, perfectly healthy: https://people.com/food/mcdonalds-big-mac-supersize-me-don-gorske-world-record/ https://people.com/food/mcdonalds-big-mac-supersize-me-don-g... Studies on diets with a variety of macros (but the same calories): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357 CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413101 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413101 CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.
- sneak 7y ago
  Carbs are not carbs (high vs low GI, for example), and fat is not fat (trans fats vs MCT, for example). Many other factors go into whether or not input calories are digested, whether or not input calories are stored (and whether or not as glycogen), and whether or not input calories end up as long-term fat. It isn’t that simple. That said, that’s absolutely no argument for regulation. People should be free to entirely destroy themselves seeking short-term dopamine hits—if they so choose. It is staunchly immoral to impede them.
  - billmalarky 7y ago
    >That said, that’s absolutely no argument for regulation. People should be free to entirely destroy themselves seeking short-term dopamine hits—if they so choose. It is staunchly immoral to impede them. This ignores the entire premise of my comment, which is that people's choices in this context are not made in a vacuum. If the market demands unhealthy food, then that is what the food industry will supply, and thus be the option made generally available to all. The food industry has exploited human evolutionary traits (cravings for salt/sugar/fat and other nutrients that are high-value in moderation but detrimental in excess) to push the market in a direction that boosts consumption (and thus revenue growth) at a cost to our health.
    - sneak 7y ago
      The cost to people’s health is not caused by “the food industry”. It is caused, moment by moment, by those same people choosing to harm themselves. Grocery stores still sell broccoli and chicken. People choose to buy oreos and croissants and other refined carbs. That’s not “the food industry”. It’s variously described, but “consumer choice” and “market demands” don’t really capture it. It boils down to other adult humans, just like you and I, choosing what they want to spend their money on, choosing what foods they want to eat. It is nobody’s place but the eater to tell them what they should or should not be doing. Full stop.
  - andrekandre 7y ago
    > That said, that’s absolutely no argument for regulation. People should be free to entirely destroy themselves seeking short-term dopamine hits—if they so choose. It is staunchly immoral to impede them. i could agree with you for individuals but for corporations who are making money off of (and actively marketing) certain things (that indeed do harm people) i would say regulations should exist to at the very least mark thier products so the consumer is informed “this will most likely kill you if you take more than once a day” or “there are no proven claims in this product” etc... after working at a few very large firms, i have little faith in companies being genuine about their products’s safety, and if one was to leave things to “the market” then being informed is the absolute minimum in my opinion... idk though maybe i am missing something...

chrisco255 7y ago

Don't equivocate eating food to smoking. There is no evidence that someone who consumes a healthy level of calories (whether those calories are wheat-based, meat-based, potato-based, etc) are putting themselves on any kind of path to cancer or heart disease. Carbs are carbs. Protein is protein. Fat is fat. Sure, some types of foods (including fried foods) have excessive calories for the average American lifestyle. That's been known for decades. But there is no evidence that calories from broccoli are any less or more cancerous than calories from potatoes or bread or vegetable oil. My experience is not an outlier. This guy has eaten 30,000 Big Macs, perfectly healthy: https://people.com/food/mcdonalds-big-mac-supersize-me-don-gorske-world-record/ https://people.com/food/mcdonalds-big-mac-supersize-me-don-g... Studies on diets with a variety of macros (but the same calories): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357 CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413101 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413101 CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.

sneak 7y ago
Carbs are not carbs (high vs low GI, for example), and fat is not fat (trans fats vs MCT, for example). Many other factors go into whether or not input calories are digested, whether or not input calories are stored (and whether or not as glycogen), and whether or not input calories end up as long-term fat. It isn’t that simple. That said, that’s absolutely no argument for regulation. People should be free to entirely destroy themselves seeking short-term dopamine hits—if they so choose. It is staunchly immoral to impede them.
- billmalarky 7y ago
  >That said, that’s absolutely no argument for regulation. People should be free to entirely destroy themselves seeking short-term dopamine hits—if they so choose. It is staunchly immoral to impede them. This ignores the entire premise of my comment, which is that people's choices in this context are not made in a vacuum. If the market demands unhealthy food, then that is what the food industry will supply, and thus be the option made generally available to all. The food industry has exploited human evolutionary traits (cravings for salt/sugar/fat and other nutrients that are high-value in moderation but detrimental in excess) to push the market in a direction that boosts consumption (and thus revenue growth) at a cost to our health.
  - sneak 7y ago
    The cost to people’s health is not caused by “the food industry”. It is caused, moment by moment, by those same people choosing to harm themselves. Grocery stores still sell broccoli and chicken. People choose to buy oreos and croissants and other refined carbs. That’s not “the food industry”. It’s variously described, but “consumer choice” and “market demands” don’t really capture it. It boils down to other adult humans, just like you and I, choosing what they want to spend their money on, choosing what foods they want to eat. It is nobody’s place but the eater to tell them what they should or should not be doing. Full stop.
- andrekandre 7y ago
  > That said, that’s absolutely no argument for regulation. People should be free to entirely destroy themselves seeking short-term dopamine hits—if they so choose. It is staunchly immoral to impede them. i could agree with you for individuals but for corporations who are making money off of (and actively marketing) certain things (that indeed do harm people) i would say regulations should exist to at the very least mark thier products so the consumer is informed “this will most likely kill you if you take more than once a day” or “there are no proven claims in this product” etc... after working at a few very large firms, i have little faith in companies being genuine about their products’s safety, and if one was to leave things to “the market” then being informed is the absolute minimum in my opinion... idk though maybe i am missing something...