4 ms·
IMO the graph is misleading a bit. Sugar is much less of a problem if you are also being very active on a daily basis. For example, your work contains physical
by onetimeuse92304 3y ago
IMO the graph is misleading a bit.
Sugar is much less of a problem if you are also being very active on a daily basis. For example, your work contains physical component or maybe you are walking a lot.
So while the graph is showing dropping amount of sugar consumption, it is not taking account for also falling healthy limit of sugar consumption, ie. the fact that we should be eating even less overall given falling activity levels.
And this is especially true for kids whose activity levels fallen dramatically since smartphones.
I can tell that the same amount of sugar has much less effect on me since I lost weight and started running a lot every day. And I know this because I put on a continuous glucose monitor from time to time and can observe sugar spikes from foods to debug my diet.
You can learn a lot wearing CGM like the fact that my local Starbucks was serving me lactose-free milk regardless of what I ordered. You can tell lactose-free milk on a CGM because of a huge glucose spike. The reason? "Lactose free" is misleading. In reality they don't remove lactose. Lactose-free milk is obtained by adding to milk an enzyme that converts lactose to glucose and galactose which can be easily absorbed by the body and cause blood glucose spikes.
- raincole 3y ago> IMO the graph is misleading a bit. ...how? Like, seriously how? The graph is about sugar. It doesn't have obese or similar words in it. If there is a graph of "U.S. citizen's smartphone usage trend from 2010-2021", are you going to say it's misleading a bit because it doesn't take sugar into account...?
- onetimeuse92304 3y agoIt is misleading people because people see the graph and compare it to the graph of rising obesity levels and infer (incorrectly) that if sugar is falling and obesity is rising then it is not sugar that is responsible for obesity. The truth is that obesity is more complex problem but sugar definitely one of the important drivers. One way obesity is a complex problem is that in most people it is delayed by decades. Our bodies can take a lot of punishment for a long time before they become disregulated enough to start gaining weight.
- raincole 3y agoIn this particular sense, it's 100% "people"'s fault. This graph just doesn't say it. It really doesn't. If people misreading something makes it misleading, I really wonder if there is any graph that isn't misleading ever.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- eterm 3y agoSo you draw your own faulty and misleading conclusions from a graph which never says anything about obesity, and then say it's the graph that is misleading not your analysis?
- hellzbellz123 3y ago[dead]
- wernercd 3y agoHow is it misleading? it's simply showing that people aren't eating more sugar. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to add that to an article about how "100 pounds of sugar a year with half the activity because people people are playing xbox too much" that's fine - this could be a part of that conversation. Nothing wrong with the bigger conversations... but also nothing wrong with data points like this for the sake of data points.
- buu700 3y agoIt would also be a lot more useful if it included all carbohydrates, particularly categorized by glycemic index.
- 462436347 3y ago> You can learn a lot wearing CGM Are you diabetic?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 462436347 3y agoHe posted, then deleted, a response saying he's not diabetic, but isn't healthy either. I guess he wears a CGM because he falsely believes transient blood glucose spikes ultimately cause T2D.
- clockworklauren 3y agoYour comment has helped me immensely... I have some degree of lactose sensitivity (can eat cheese and ice cream but cant drink milk), and when I have optimistically tried lactose free milk in the past it has upset my stomach just the same as the normal milk would. What you mentioned about the production of lactose free milk is something I had wondered, how could they actually remove the lactose. anyways thanks for you comment I will go down a research rabbit hole of galactose
- hammock 3y agoWhy don’t you start by reading the ingredients on what you’re drinking… it’s milk + lactase (the enzyme in question)
- reaperman 3y agoThis is overly dismissive. I wouldn't expect everyone to know that lactose + lactase = glucose + galactose. I do, but I studied molecular biology.
- onetimeuse92304 3y agoI didn't know about it until I put on CGM and noticed the spikes. Then used google to figure it out. Which is also why I think it is useful to try putting CGM for couple of weeks just as a learning experience. Most people will never have CGM on and hence no way to really understand how different food they eat influences their blood glucose.
- hammock 3y ago>This is overly dismissive. Not my intention at all. Quite the opposite. I only mean to point out that some valuable (hard-fought) tools are there, literally at our fingertips, to take greater control over our diets and lifestyles, and I wish more were aware of them! The information is not hiding. If you drink something like "lactose-free milk" or feed your kids "50% reduced-sugar juice" I encourage the intellectual curiosity to understand what it is that makes it different from the regular kind - be it lactase or stevia or whatever else. And more often than not the answer is found in the ingredients label
- parineum 3y ago> Lactose free" is misleading. In reality they don't remove lactose. Lactose-free milk is obtained by adding to milk an enzyme that converts lactose to glucose and galactose Thereby leaving the milk lactose free... Lactase, the enzyme in question, is produced by those who are not lactose intolerant and results in the same quantity of sugar though perhaps without so much "spike".
- onetimeuse92304 3y agoThe misleading part is that people don't expect milk to be a sugary drink.
- parineum 3y agoIt's sugary in any form. That's an issue of ignorance rather than being mislead.