5 ms·
I actually found it to be content dense. It was a bit unactionable, but a good amount of content. Of course he also gives you the names, so you can look up th
by kenjackson 16y ago
I actually found it to be content dense. It was a bit unactionable, but a good amount of content. Of course he also gives you the names, so you can look up the studies, although he also pretty much tells you that its not applicable to your current diet.
Again, maybe not actionable, but definitely content. Especially for a mainstream newspaper article.
- neonscribe 16y agoDo you mean actionable in the legal sense? I agree, there isn't enough evidence to sue anyone at this point. If you refer to action that an individual or family can take, how about this: eliminate sweet drinks, desserts and snacks from your diet.
- jerf 16y ago"It was a bit unactionable," Well, yes and no. There is some good but as-yet not conclusive reasons to believe that sugar is far more dangerous than it appears. On the other hand, there is nobody I am aware of who has any argument in favor of consuming more sugars or more sugary foods. I am not aware of any argument against cutting back your sugar consumptions as a reasonable preventative step. A conventional dietitian will place much less emphasis on it than Dr. Lustig, but they won't try to talk you out of it. This is as opposed to fats, where I have seen arguments made that cutting back on fats can be actively harmful. I'm not making it here, nor am I claiming it is true, I'm simply saying I have definitely seen that argument made.
- kenjackson 16y agoYou're absolutely right. I was thinking more about changing the diet for different ratios of glucose/fructose/lactose for some reason vs just reducing sugar intake. Curious how sugar compares to artificial sweeteners in light of this data? Splenda vs sugar?