4 ms·

Obesity was about 17% in the USA in 1990 and is now at an incredible 40%. One wonders how many lives were lost by abandoning this in 1990.

LarsDu88 2y ago
Well, one could argue obesity has as much to do with deregulating the advertising of sugary cereals as a breakfast food for children in the 1980s as the non-existence of a $10,000+ shot that alters human metabolism!
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  Look at the historical rate of obesity in Europe. Following the same trajectory as the US, as far as I can tell. Does deregulating advertising of sugary cereals also explain that?
  - cassepipe 2y ago
    Advertising probably not but the simple availability of ever sweeter cheap products and with time their integration in people's diet is a strong candidate. Especially since sugar is way less good than say fat at provoking the feeling of satiation (I can think only of evolutionary explanations for that, available sweet food in the wild, think fruits, are not very nutritive, especially ones not selected by humans over time)
  - oezi 2y ago
    > surgary cereals What else are kids eating these days for breakfast?
    - jajko 2y ago
      Whatever you teach them to eat. But parents are often lazy, its supremely easier to buy addictive paper boxes and be done rather than wake up 10 minutes earlier (or 2) and cook or prepare something quick and healthy. Depends also where you live, US its exactly as we discuss, ie France or Switzerland its a completely different world, and its immediately obvious on people too. This approach also permeates many aspects of society. Kids also imitate what they see in parents, both good and bad. No point preaching healthy lifestyle if one is obese and spends hours daily in front of TV eating junkfood. Also, back in 80s I had maybe 4 years and I knew very well sweet stuff is bad for one's health, it was always as obvious as ie that cigarettes were very harmful and highly addictive. I love how many folks desperately try to throw blame on literally anybody, anything for their failures in life, rather than taking a cold hard look at the mirror and accepting one's own failures, as a parent but also generally as human in this case. Sure, it makes life with oneself a bit easier, instead of huge instant dose of misery and self-disappointment its slowly dripping through the cracks of illusions for the rest of their lives and people love feeling like a victim, but it very effectively prevents actually fixing anything. So sure, lets blame sugar industry (which is doing exactly what all other businesses do - sell to as many people as possible), lets blame tobacco industry or wine producers for people's failures. Lets wait till politicians will sweep away all obstacles and traps from our lives, of course that's a reasonable expectation. Anything but throwing away that 3rd cupcake or starbucks latte.
      - oezi 2y ago
        It was a serious question. Who is cooking in the morning? And what? Eggs and bacon (isn't that just replacing the sugar with fat/salt)? Porridge? Bread/toast also isn't particularly healthy (too high in salt, spikes your insulin too much). Fruit is also just very similar than sweets with a bit more fiber, isn't it? So, a plate of some veggies? And don't get me started on spreads which are available: you can choose between fat (butter/margerine/cheese/most other spreads), high salt (meat/salami) and sweet (jam, honey, nutella)
        TylerE 2y ago
        Ironically, as a diabetic (or even a non-diabetic) fat is a pretty innocuous thing. Certainly compared to carbs...
        rootusrootus 2y ago
        Fat is probably a better choice than sugar in nearly all instances. High calorie but it’ll keep you full quite a while. Veggies definitely aren’t any good for that. My strategy these days is to try and eliminate simple sugars and highly refined carbs whenever possible; everything else is fair game. When I see something advertised as “low fat” I instantly conclude it will probably make you fat and it’s best to skip it.
      - rootusrootus 2y ago
        > I love how many folks desperately try to throw blame on literally anybody When I read opinions like this, I immediately have two thoughts. 1) What makes people think it's their right to shame anyone else? The 'look in the mirror' advice is pretty universal. 2) Is there even anyone qualified to make comments like this? Am I to assume that the folks who imply their superiority do not in fact have their own failings? Glass house and all that. I think perhaps it's more complicated, and declaring it a moral failing is not going to improve anyone's life.
        jajko 2y ago
        Fails I own are the fails I try to tackle. If its outside force, then the only action can be altering that force (good luck changing nation's mindsets and values) or cutting off from it. I chose the owning approach, it works very nicely for my entire life so far, since its work between me and me so whatever is happening outside has no impact. Doesn't make it an easier life, in contrary, but much much better overall. A plus is building stronger 'character' in challenges for lack of better words.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  Obesity is a complicated problem and we can’t blame corporations alone.
  - catchnear4321 2y ago
    > …we can’t blame corporations alone. ok, but we can very much start with blaming corporations. sure, there are other factors at play, these are very large systems acting on individuals. that’s the point. corporations are sufficiently complex and large to manipulate the system. individuals rarely are, and when they do, it is often by forming a corporation around themselves. influencers are faces for larger operations, they have employees, payroll… just like a more traditional brick and mortar.
  - grouchomarx 2y ago
    I'm willing to
  - jjtheblunt 2y ago
    it's not super complicated for most cases: grams of sugar(s) ingested versus grams of essential nutrients (proteins, fats) is too high.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      If most cases include people without diabetes, PCOS or some other condition, yes you can eat less than what you burn and you will lose weight. In other cases, those people need medical intervention such as Mounjaro, Ozempic, etc
      - jjtheblunt 2y ago
        I mean to point out that "signal to noise" is what's often being overlooked, though "noise to signal" is more descriptive terminology. it's very easy, in american fast food, for example, to ingest a great amount of unnecessary sugars (difficult to digest lipids, etc) while your body is trying to just get necessary nutrients themselves. worse, since we are built to remember results of eating, if some low nutritional signal to noise "food" satisfies some necessary essential nutrient craving, it's easy to remember what it was that alleviated a craving before, and tail recursively go eat the same shit again.
Someone1234 2y ago
It isn't a coincidence though that back in the 1990s the sugar industry was spending/lobbying big to attack dietary fat. A lot of foods intentionally removed satiating fats with nutritional value and replace it with cheaper sugars that you can eat almost unlimited amounts of without feeling full. If I could only name two big "things" that contributed most to the obesity problem of today it would be: - Agricultural Act of 1970 and the polices of the 1970s, resulted in corn so cheap and abundant that other industries actively looked for usages. HFCS was obviously one such use, and it out-competed all other nutritional sources on price. - The 1990s "fat bad, sugar good" which resulted in reformulating a lot of staple foods and the beginning of standard sweet food allowing the cheap HFCS to flow. The US needs, and has needed, to offset the corn subsidies that get turned into HFCS by adding a "sugar tax" at the consumer side. That way it can still exist for animal feed, and be used where appropriate without being unnaturally and unreasonably inexpensive. The reason they don't is that it is political suicide to suggest sugar taxes in personal-freedom loving US that is pretty anti-tax regardless.
- cmiller1 2y ago
  https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/big-sugar-isnt-to-blame-for-steering-us-away-from-fat.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/big-sugar-isnt-to-blame...
  - Someone1234 2y ago
    Did you read that article or just the title? Because the article isn't focused on disproving any facts of the "big sugar bad" side but rather saying the facts as they stand are being unfairly characterized. The article is well written, and I WOULD recommend it for anyone interest in this topic. But ultimately I'd just point to the same facts presented in the article, and you determine if we're being mean to the sugar industry or fair. The result is the same either way, regardless of who gets the blame.
- 462436347 2y ago
  Sugar consumption peaked in 2000 and has been in steady decline since, and not only that, but the decline has been led by a decline in HFCS consumption: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38094768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38094768 30% of the US was obese in 2000, now it's over 40%, despite per capita sugar consumption reverting to what it was pre-1975. > The US needs, and has needed, to offset the corn subsidies that get turned into HFCS by adding a "sugar tax" at the consumer side. If anything, we need a tax on added fat and sodium, the two biggest drivers of food hyperpalatability, when added in excess of the thresholds identified in this paper (> 25% kcal from fat and ≥ 0.30% sodium by weight): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22639 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22639 > The HPF criteria identified 62% (4,795/7,757) of foods in the FNDDS that met criteria for at least one cluster. Most HPF items (70%; 3,351/4,795) met criteria for the FSOD cluster. Twenty-five percent of items (1,176/4,795) met criteria for the FS cluster, and 16% (747/4,795) met criteria for the CSOD cluster. The clusters were largely distinct from each other, and < 10% of all HPF items met criteria for more than one cluster. (CSOD, carbohydrates and sodium; FS, fat and simple sugars; FSOD, fat and sodium; HPF, hyper-palatable foods.)

LarsDu88 2y ago

Well, one could argue obesity has as much to do with deregulating the advertising of sugary cereals as a breakfast food for children in the 1980s as the non-existence of a $10,000+ shot that alters human metabolism!

rootusrootus 2y ago
Look at the historical rate of obesity in Europe. Following the same trajectory as the US, as far as I can tell. Does deregulating advertising of sugary cereals also explain that?
- cassepipe 2y ago
  Advertising probably not but the simple availability of ever sweeter cheap products and with time their integration in people's diet is a strong candidate. Especially since sugar is way less good than say fat at provoking the feeling of satiation (I can think only of evolutionary explanations for that, available sweet food in the wild, think fruits, are not very nutritive, especially ones not selected by humans over time)
- oezi 2y ago
  > surgary cereals What else are kids eating these days for breakfast?
  - jajko 2y ago
    Whatever you teach them to eat. But parents are often lazy, its supremely easier to buy addictive paper boxes and be done rather than wake up 10 minutes earlier (or 2) and cook or prepare something quick and healthy. Depends also where you live, US its exactly as we discuss, ie France or Switzerland its a completely different world, and its immediately obvious on people too. This approach also permeates many aspects of society. Kids also imitate what they see in parents, both good and bad. No point preaching healthy lifestyle if one is obese and spends hours daily in front of TV eating junkfood. Also, back in 80s I had maybe 4 years and I knew very well sweet stuff is bad for one's health, it was always as obvious as ie that cigarettes were very harmful and highly addictive. I love how many folks desperately try to throw blame on literally anybody, anything for their failures in life, rather than taking a cold hard look at the mirror and accepting one's own failures, as a parent but also generally as human in this case. Sure, it makes life with oneself a bit easier, instead of huge instant dose of misery and self-disappointment its slowly dripping through the cracks of illusions for the rest of their lives and people love feeling like a victim, but it very effectively prevents actually fixing anything. So sure, lets blame sugar industry (which is doing exactly what all other businesses do - sell to as many people as possible), lets blame tobacco industry or wine producers for people's failures. Lets wait till politicians will sweep away all obstacles and traps from our lives, of course that's a reasonable expectation. Anything but throwing away that 3rd cupcake or starbucks latte.
    - oezi 2y ago
      It was a serious question. Who is cooking in the morning? And what? Eggs and bacon (isn't that just replacing the sugar with fat/salt)? Porridge? Bread/toast also isn't particularly healthy (too high in salt, spikes your insulin too much). Fruit is also just very similar than sweets with a bit more fiber, isn't it? So, a plate of some veggies? And don't get me started on spreads which are available: you can choose between fat (butter/margerine/cheese/most other spreads), high salt (meat/salami) and sweet (jam, honey, nutella)
      - TylerE 2y ago
        Ironically, as a diabetic (or even a non-diabetic) fat is a pretty innocuous thing. Certainly compared to carbs...
      - rootusrootus 2y ago
        Fat is probably a better choice than sugar in nearly all instances. High calorie but it’ll keep you full quite a while. Veggies definitely aren’t any good for that. My strategy these days is to try and eliminate simple sugars and highly refined carbs whenever possible; everything else is fair game. When I see something advertised as “low fat” I instantly conclude it will probably make you fat and it’s best to skip it.
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      > I love how many folks desperately try to throw blame on literally anybody When I read opinions like this, I immediately have two thoughts. 1) What makes people think it's their right to shame anyone else? The 'look in the mirror' advice is pretty universal. 2) Is there even anyone qualified to make comments like this? Am I to assume that the folks who imply their superiority do not in fact have their own failings? Glass house and all that. I think perhaps it's more complicated, and declaring it a moral failing is not going to improve anyone's life.
      - jajko 2y ago
        Fails I own are the fails I try to tackle. If its outside force, then the only action can be altering that force (good luck changing nation's mindsets and values) or cutting off from it. I chose the owning approach, it works very nicely for my entire life so far, since its work between me and me so whatever is happening outside has no impact. Doesn't make it an easier life, in contrary, but much much better overall. A plus is building stronger 'character' in challenges for lack of better words.
firesteelrain 2y ago
Obesity is a complicated problem and we can’t blame corporations alone.
- catchnear4321 2y ago
  > …we can’t blame corporations alone. ok, but we can very much start with blaming corporations. sure, there are other factors at play, these are very large systems acting on individuals. that’s the point. corporations are sufficiently complex and large to manipulate the system. individuals rarely are, and when they do, it is often by forming a corporation around themselves. influencers are faces for larger operations, they have employees, payroll… just like a more traditional brick and mortar.
- grouchomarx 2y ago
  I'm willing to
- jjtheblunt 2y ago
  it's not super complicated for most cases: grams of sugar(s) ingested versus grams of essential nutrients (proteins, fats) is too high.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    If most cases include people without diabetes, PCOS or some other condition, yes you can eat less than what you burn and you will lose weight. In other cases, those people need medical intervention such as Mounjaro, Ozempic, etc
    - jjtheblunt 2y ago
      I mean to point out that "signal to noise" is what's often being overlooked, though "noise to signal" is more descriptive terminology. it's very easy, in american fast food, for example, to ingest a great amount of unnecessary sugars (difficult to digest lipids, etc) while your body is trying to just get necessary nutrients themselves. worse, since we are built to remember results of eating, if some low nutritional signal to noise "food" satisfies some necessary essential nutrient craving, it's easy to remember what it was that alleviated a craving before, and tail recursively go eat the same shit again.

Someone1234 2y ago

It isn't a coincidence though that back in the 1990s the sugar industry was spending/lobbying big to attack dietary fat. A lot of foods intentionally removed satiating fats with nutritional value and replace it with cheaper sugars that you can eat almost unlimited amounts of without feeling full. If I could only name two big "things" that contributed most to the obesity problem of today it would be: - Agricultural Act of 1970 and the polices of the 1970s, resulted in corn so cheap and abundant that other industries actively looked for usages. HFCS was obviously one such use, and it out-competed all other nutritional sources on price. - The 1990s "fat bad, sugar good" which resulted in reformulating a lot of staple foods and the beginning of standard sweet food allowing the cheap HFCS to flow. The US needs, and has needed, to offset the corn subsidies that get turned into HFCS by adding a "sugar tax" at the consumer side. That way it can still exist for animal feed, and be used where appropriate without being unnaturally and unreasonably inexpensive. The reason they don't is that it is political suicide to suggest sugar taxes in personal-freedom loving US that is pretty anti-tax regardless.

cmiller1 2y ago
https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/big-sugar-isnt-to-blame-for-steering-us-away-from-fat.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/big-sugar-isnt-to-blame...
- Someone1234 2y ago
  Did you read that article or just the title? Because the article isn't focused on disproving any facts of the "big sugar bad" side but rather saying the facts as they stand are being unfairly characterized. The article is well written, and I WOULD recommend it for anyone interest in this topic. But ultimately I'd just point to the same facts presented in the article, and you determine if we're being mean to the sugar industry or fair. The result is the same either way, regardless of who gets the blame.
462436347 2y ago
Sugar consumption peaked in 2000 and has been in steady decline since, and not only that, but the decline has been led by a decline in HFCS consumption: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38094768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38094768 30% of the US was obese in 2000, now it's over 40%, despite per capita sugar consumption reverting to what it was pre-1975. > The US needs, and has needed, to offset the corn subsidies that get turned into HFCS by adding a "sugar tax" at the consumer side. If anything, we need a tax on added fat and sodium, the two biggest drivers of food hyperpalatability, when added in excess of the thresholds identified in this paper (> 25% kcal from fat and ≥ 0.30% sodium by weight): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22639 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22639 > The HPF criteria identified 62% (4,795/7,757) of foods in the FNDDS that met criteria for at least one cluster. Most HPF items (70%; 3,351/4,795) met criteria for the FSOD cluster. Twenty-five percent of items (1,176/4,795) met criteria for the FS cluster, and 16% (747/4,795) met criteria for the CSOD cluster. The clusters were largely distinct from each other, and < 10% of all HPF items met criteria for more than one cluster. (CSOD, carbohydrates and sodium; FS, fat and simple sugars; FSOD, fat and sodium; HPF, hyper-palatable foods.)