4 ms·

Wonderful news, this chocolate eclair is healthy for me!

by overcast 4y ago

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
Sugar - sadly - isn't a spice.
- overcast 4y ago
  The title is implying tasting good = healthy.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    My point is that there's room for a little more nuance than that; "your body likes X because it's good for you" doesn't imply a universal rule, just a specific correlation.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    It's really more like tasting good = evolutionarily useful.
    - carlmr 4y ago
      Which is true for sugar. It's good if you get a few grams of sugar while running around the forest all day. It's not good to get half a pound of sugar from big gulp softdrinks while you're sitting in traffic.
    - beebmam 4y ago
      Not necessarily, even in the evolutionary biology model. Something can taste good to humans entirely by accident, and be evolutionarily neutral (or even a small amount negative). Just like the reason men have nipples.
      - strken 4y ago
        This is probably more true of sweet-tasting poisons like lead diacetate than sugars.
  - fortran77 4y ago
    This is one of the dangerous concepts pushed by the “Intuitive Eating” pro-obesity folks.
    - TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
      When in doubt: Paracelsus! “All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison.”
twelvedogs 4y ago
The ingredients probably are, the quantities possibly not
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
When food was scarce? That eclair would absolutely improve your chance of survival.
- notfed 4y ago
  And to the ripe old age of 30 years!
  - callalex 4y ago
    This is a misconception about life expectancy statistics. For most of human history, if you survive past early childhood, you can expect to live a pretty long life. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-ii-life-expectancy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-funda...
    - euroderf 4y ago
      "Life expectancy at age five" (or 4 or wotevs) seems much more useful, but it is rarely seen nowadays. No idea why.

Wonderful news, this chocolate eclair is healthy for me!

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago

Sugar - sadly - isn't a spice.

overcast 4y ago
The title is implying tasting good = healthy.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  My point is that there's room for a little more nuance than that; "your body likes X because it's good for you" doesn't imply a universal rule, just a specific correlation.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  It's really more like tasting good = evolutionarily useful.
  - carlmr 4y ago
    Which is true for sugar. It's good if you get a few grams of sugar while running around the forest all day. It's not good to get half a pound of sugar from big gulp softdrinks while you're sitting in traffic.
  - beebmam 4y ago
    Not necessarily, even in the evolutionary biology model. Something can taste good to humans entirely by accident, and be evolutionarily neutral (or even a small amount negative). Just like the reason men have nipples.
    - strken 4y ago
      This is probably more true of sweet-tasting poisons like lead diacetate than sugars.
- fortran77 4y ago
  This is one of the dangerous concepts pushed by the “Intuitive Eating” pro-obesity folks.
  - TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
    When in doubt: Paracelsus! “All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison.”

twelvedogs 4y ago

The ingredients probably are, the quantities possibly not

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

When food was scarce? That eclair would absolutely improve your chance of survival.

notfed 4y ago
And to the ripe old age of 30 years!
- callalex 4y ago
  This is a misconception about life expectancy statistics. For most of human history, if you survive past early childhood, you can expect to live a pretty long life. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-ii-life-expectancy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-funda...
  - euroderf 4y ago
    "Life expectancy at age five" (or 4 or wotevs) seems much more useful, but it is rarely seen nowadays. No idea why.