5 ms·

> What we need to do is regulate how much sugar you can put into foods. How about we first find out what actually causes diabetes. Not what correlates with it,

> What we need to do is regulate how much sugar you can put into foods. How about we first find out what actually causes diabetes. Not what correlates with it, but what really causes it. And then how we can stop that. You can tax or forbid sugar all you want, but is it gonna stop diabetes? Will people who eat tons of other "empty carbs" really not get diabetes? I'm not so sure. Instead of restricting peoples lifes, I would much rather opt for giving them opportunities. Such as providing discounts for gyms or other ways of working out.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ahnick 5y ago
I didn't really think sugar causing obesity (and in turn causing diabetes) was open to debate? People gain weight because they consume too many calories and then eventually overweight people develop diabetes. The big calorie contributor to modern diets is the sugar content in food. For example, there are no shortage of stories of people losing weight just by cutting out soda from their diets. Now, some people will change their life through incentives and some people won't. The nice thing about a sugar tax is that if the funds are appropriated for health care funding or UBI for low income individuals, then you can provide more of the opportunities you were talking about for people to get healthy (gym discounts, nutrition consults, etc.). The tax is two parts. Disincentivize the purchasing of high sugar content food and fund discounts or incentives that improve health outcomes.
- valenterry 5y ago
  > I didn't really think sugar causing obesity (and in turn causing diabetes) was open to debate There is no debate that there is a correlation, but that's not a causation. Also, what is it now, sugar or obesity? Because if it is obesity, then shouldn't we (by your logic) tax everything that leads to obesity and not just sugar? > People gain weight because they consume too many calories and then eventually overweight people develop diabetes. But why do they consume too many calories? There was a post here on HN not long ago that claimed that the micro-nutritions (like minerals) of many vegetables have declined over the years. Maybe that contributes much more to "eating too much" than anything else. That's something to research first, before taxing stuff based on our gutfeeling imho.
  - ahnick 5y ago
    > There is no debate that there is a correlation, but that's not a causation. No, I'm saying that it is the cause. People consume food that contains sugar. Because the food contains all that added sugar the number of calories in the food is higher than it would otherwise be. This constant caloric surplus is what leads to obesity, which in turn leads to diabetes. (at least of the non-genetic variety) > Also, what is it now, sugar or obesity? Because if it is obesity, then shouldn't we (by your logic) tax everything that leads to obesity and not just sugar? The added sugar is why the food contains so many calories. If you remove the sugar you remove the additional calories. You don't need to tax everything. Just the sugar. > But why do they consume too many calories? Because people eat until they are satiated and unfortunately sugar does not make you feel full, but it does add a lot of calories; therefore, people end up consuming more calories than they should, since they are always eating until they are full. > There was a post here on HN not long ago that claimed that the micro-nutritions (like minerals) of many vegetables have declined over the years. Maybe that contributes much more to "eating too much" than anything else. That's something to research first, before taxing stuff based on our gutfeeling imho. This is not a gut feeling. Sugar is a high caloric food and the consumption of too much of it causes spikes in insulin that can lead to insulin resistance that in turn causes the pancreas to produce more insulin. High levels of insulin in the body cause more fat to be stored in cells and prevents the breakdown of fat. If we can deter people from consuming lots of sugar, then you can prevent this whole process from starting.
    - valenterry 5y ago
      > No, I'm saying that it is the cause. Well, then I disagree. There's people getting no diabetes even though eating a lot of sugar and I bet there's also a lot of people getting or having diabetes without eating any sugar. > This constant caloric surplus is what leads to obesity I don't think that's how it works. Point in case: if I eat two same things, once having sugar, the other one not, then I feel full quicker and longer by the one that contains sugar. That does not mean that sugar is healthy, I believe it's the opposite, but you can't just say that sugar is _the_ thing that leads to obesity. If anything, it is a surplus of calories in general, but that can happen without sugar and it also doesn't explain how it even comes to this surplus. To me it honestly feels as if you are just trying to make your life easy by finding an "easy" solution. > The added sugar is why the food contains so many calories. If you remove the sugar you remove the additional calories. You don't need to tax everything. Just the sugar. Replace sugar with fat and the same is true, no? So tax added fat as well? How about protein then? > Because people eat until they are satiated and unfortunately sugar does not make you feel full Oh, as I said, it definitely makes _me_ feel full though. Maybe you meant "doesn't make you feel as full as other things"? Well then I might agree, but here it becomes complicated - if you are actually consequent, you would not tax sugar, but things that "make you not feel as full", don't you agree? > This is not a gut feeling. Sugar is a high caloric food and the consumption of too much of it causes spikes in insulin that can lead to insulin resistance that in turn causes the pancreas to produce more insulin You just said something very important: "too much". But what is too much? That question can't even be answered in general, because, for example, it is different for someone lying on their couch the whole day and someone doing extreme sports.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ahnick 5y ago

I didn't really think sugar causing obesity (and in turn causing diabetes) was open to debate? People gain weight because they consume too many calories and then eventually overweight people develop diabetes. The big calorie contributor to modern diets is the sugar content in food. For example, there are no shortage of stories of people losing weight just by cutting out soda from their diets. Now, some people will change their life through incentives and some people won't. The nice thing about a sugar tax is that if the funds are appropriated for health care funding or UBI for low income individuals, then you can provide more of the opportunities you were talking about for people to get healthy (gym discounts, nutrition consults, etc.). The tax is two parts. Disincentivize the purchasing of high sugar content food and fund discounts or incentives that improve health outcomes.

valenterry 5y ago
> I didn't really think sugar causing obesity (and in turn causing diabetes) was open to debate There is no debate that there is a correlation, but that's not a causation. Also, what is it now, sugar or obesity? Because if it is obesity, then shouldn't we (by your logic) tax everything that leads to obesity and not just sugar? > People gain weight because they consume too many calories and then eventually overweight people develop diabetes. But why do they consume too many calories? There was a post here on HN not long ago that claimed that the micro-nutritions (like minerals) of many vegetables have declined over the years. Maybe that contributes much more to "eating too much" than anything else. That's something to research first, before taxing stuff based on our gutfeeling imho.
- ahnick 5y ago
  > There is no debate that there is a correlation, but that's not a causation. No, I'm saying that it is the cause. People consume food that contains sugar. Because the food contains all that added sugar the number of calories in the food is higher than it would otherwise be. This constant caloric surplus is what leads to obesity, which in turn leads to diabetes. (at least of the non-genetic variety) > Also, what is it now, sugar or obesity? Because if it is obesity, then shouldn't we (by your logic) tax everything that leads to obesity and not just sugar? The added sugar is why the food contains so many calories. If you remove the sugar you remove the additional calories. You don't need to tax everything. Just the sugar. > But why do they consume too many calories? Because people eat until they are satiated and unfortunately sugar does not make you feel full, but it does add a lot of calories; therefore, people end up consuming more calories than they should, since they are always eating until they are full. > There was a post here on HN not long ago that claimed that the micro-nutritions (like minerals) of many vegetables have declined over the years. Maybe that contributes much more to "eating too much" than anything else. That's something to research first, before taxing stuff based on our gutfeeling imho. This is not a gut feeling. Sugar is a high caloric food and the consumption of too much of it causes spikes in insulin that can lead to insulin resistance that in turn causes the pancreas to produce more insulin. High levels of insulin in the body cause more fat to be stored in cells and prevents the breakdown of fat. If we can deter people from consuming lots of sugar, then you can prevent this whole process from starting.
  - valenterry 5y ago
    > No, I'm saying that it is the cause. Well, then I disagree. There's people getting no diabetes even though eating a lot of sugar and I bet there's also a lot of people getting or having diabetes without eating any sugar. > This constant caloric surplus is what leads to obesity I don't think that's how it works. Point in case: if I eat two same things, once having sugar, the other one not, then I feel full quicker and longer by the one that contains sugar. That does not mean that sugar is healthy, I believe it's the opposite, but you can't just say that sugar is _the_ thing that leads to obesity. If anything, it is a surplus of calories in general, but that can happen without sugar and it also doesn't explain how it even comes to this surplus. To me it honestly feels as if you are just trying to make your life easy by finding an "easy" solution. > The added sugar is why the food contains so many calories. If you remove the sugar you remove the additional calories. You don't need to tax everything. Just the sugar. Replace sugar with fat and the same is true, no? So tax added fat as well? How about protein then? > Because people eat until they are satiated and unfortunately sugar does not make you feel full Oh, as I said, it definitely makes _me_ feel full though. Maybe you meant "doesn't make you feel as full as other things"? Well then I might agree, but here it becomes complicated - if you are actually consequent, you would not tax sugar, but things that "make you not feel as full", don't you agree? > This is not a gut feeling. Sugar is a high caloric food and the consumption of too much of it causes spikes in insulin that can lead to insulin resistance that in turn causes the pancreas to produce more insulin You just said something very important: "too much". But what is too much? That question can't even be answered in general, because, for example, it is different for someone lying on their couch the whole day and someone doing extreme sports.