5 ms·

> 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. B

by 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.
- ahnick 5y ago
  > 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. The only people getting diabetes without eating sugar are the ones that are genetically predisposed to it. (i.e. Type 1 Diabetes) We are not talking about those people. We are talking about the people who get diabetes because of insulin resistance due to being obese (Type 2 Diabetes). Sure there are lots of foods that don't contain sugar like chicken breasts, vegetables, legumes, etc; however, these are not the foods people are eating that is causing them to become obese. It's really hard to overeat those kinds of foods only, because you will become full and stop eating before you have consumed way too many calories. > I don't think that's how it works. I mean you can think anything you want, but you thinking something is not going to change the basic science. People can only gain weight by consuming more calories than they use. The majority of people are losing most of their calories by just breathing every day. Even if they introduce regular exercise they won't significantly change the calories out number, so the only choice left is to shrink the calories in number and the easiest way to do that is remove foods from your diet that contain a lot less added sugar. > 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. Sure, in principle obesity can happen with any food or additive, but in practice the leading contributor is sugar. You don't need to believe me you can DYOR on this subject. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6959843/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6959843/) There are other foods that should be limited besides sugar, but the way you start tackling a problem like obesity/diabetes is eliminate the biggest contributors first and then work your way down. > Replace sugar with fat and the same is true, no? So tax added fat as well? How about protein then? In fact, the food industry did the opposite. They replaced all the added fat with sugar and that is why there is so much sugar in everything now. The other thing though we haven't talked about is the fact that foods with sugar tend to have a high glycemic index. A high GI value causes blood sugar levels and insulin to increase quickly, which in turn causes insulin to be overproduced and more fat to be stored. In effect, the sugar that replaced fat turned out to be worse, because of biochemical processes within the human body. Perhaps if the industry starts adding lots of fat back into food if sugar was eliminated, then there would need to be a fat tax. You'd get no argument from me there, but it is not such a big problem currently. As for protein, try and consume your daily caloric intake just eating chicken breasts some time. You'll probably throw up before you get there. > 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? No, it's not about taxing something that doesn't make you feel full. It's about taxing the biggest contributor that is adding lots of excess calories into your diet and effecting the chemical processes in your body to store more fat. > 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. While the threshold for how much sugar can be consumed safely may vary from person to person, it is quite obvious that on the aggregate the majority of people in the world are consuming way more than they should. The AHA recommends an added sugar limit of no more than 36 grams per day for men. (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/added-sugar-in-the-diet/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/a...) That means if you consume one can of regular coke you have already exceeded your limit for the day. You set public policy and pass laws based on the population at large and most people are not doing extreme sports. Also, for those that are doing extreme sports sugar consumption is best targeted pre-workout or during the workout for a quick boost of energy. They will still though get a lot of their glucose intake from natural sources of sugar and so even athletes should limit the amount of added sugar they consume.

by ahnick 5y ago

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.

ahnick 5y ago
> 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. The only people getting diabetes without eating sugar are the ones that are genetically predisposed to it. (i.e. Type 1 Diabetes) We are not talking about those people. We are talking about the people who get diabetes because of insulin resistance due to being obese (Type 2 Diabetes). Sure there are lots of foods that don't contain sugar like chicken breasts, vegetables, legumes, etc; however, these are not the foods people are eating that is causing them to become obese. It's really hard to overeat those kinds of foods only, because you will become full and stop eating before you have consumed way too many calories. > I don't think that's how it works. I mean you can think anything you want, but you thinking something is not going to change the basic science. People can only gain weight by consuming more calories than they use. The majority of people are losing most of their calories by just breathing every day. Even if they introduce regular exercise they won't significantly change the calories out number, so the only choice left is to shrink the calories in number and the easiest way to do that is remove foods from your diet that contain a lot less added sugar. > 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. Sure, in principle obesity can happen with any food or additive, but in practice the leading contributor is sugar. You don't need to believe me you can DYOR on this subject. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6959843/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6959843/) There are other foods that should be limited besides sugar, but the way you start tackling a problem like obesity/diabetes is eliminate the biggest contributors first and then work your way down. > Replace sugar with fat and the same is true, no? So tax added fat as well? How about protein then? In fact, the food industry did the opposite. They replaced all the added fat with sugar and that is why there is so much sugar in everything now. The other thing though we haven't talked about is the fact that foods with sugar tend to have a high glycemic index. A high GI value causes blood sugar levels and insulin to increase quickly, which in turn causes insulin to be overproduced and more fat to be stored. In effect, the sugar that replaced fat turned out to be worse, because of biochemical processes within the human body. Perhaps if the industry starts adding lots of fat back into food if sugar was eliminated, then there would need to be a fat tax. You'd get no argument from me there, but it is not such a big problem currently. As for protein, try and consume your daily caloric intake just eating chicken breasts some time. You'll probably throw up before you get there. > 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? No, it's not about taxing something that doesn't make you feel full. It's about taxing the biggest contributor that is adding lots of excess calories into your diet and effecting the chemical processes in your body to store more fat. > 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. While the threshold for how much sugar can be consumed safely may vary from person to person, it is quite obvious that on the aggregate the majority of people in the world are consuming way more than they should. The AHA recommends an added sugar limit of no more than 36 grams per day for men. (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/added-sugar-in-the-diet/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/a...) That means if you consume one can of regular coke you have already exceeded your limit for the day. You set public policy and pass laws based on the population at large and most people are not doing extreme sports. Also, for those that are doing extreme sports sugar consumption is best targeted pre-workout or during the workout for a quick boost of energy. They will still though get a lot of their glucose intake from natural sources of sugar and so even athletes should limit the amount of added sugar they consume.