6 ms·
Yeah, well modern diets also have a wildly imbalanced omega 3-6 ratio, which causes chronic inflammation which in turn is a central driver of diabetes. Funny ho
by waihtis 2y ago
Yeah, well modern diets also have a wildly imbalanced omega 3-6 ratio, which causes chronic inflammation which in turn is a central driver of diabetes. Funny how they just disregard it and try to pinpoint everything to a single variable.
- gordyp 2y ago[dead]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- christophilus 2y agoYou’re not wrong. Sugar isn’t the only thing that changed after rations were lifted. Caloric intake in general went way up. Environmental changes came about. Processed foods became mainstream. I just don’t know how you can pinpoint one thing and choose it as the chief villain.
- waihtis 2y agoIndeed. Its the same idiocy as was/is with cholesterole
- eastbound 2y agoHonestly, when I see the young generation in US, it seems it’s kind of a given than young males must bulk up, under penalty of not being instagrammable enough to find a girlfriend. That sentence may sound terribly superficial… but it’s a reality for a lot of young men. Long story short, bulking up is at odds with ecology, and we ask youngsters to do both.
- ipaddr 2y agoThe kids these days are beanpoles and lack muscle mass. Far cry from the 80s.
- kergonath 2y ago> Long story short, bulking up is at odds with ecology, and we ask youngsters to do both. How so? I would think that better nutrition and more physical activity is not at odds with being environmentally conscious, quite the contrary.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoI suggest you read the study in detail. I originally had a similar thought as you, but then seeing how the researchers were able to tease out specific effects based on minor differences in birth timing relative to the end of sugar rationing was strong evidence.
- willy_k 2y agoI don’t see how those are mutually exclusive, they said sugar isn’t the only thing, not that it doesn’t have a significant effect.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoBecause look at their argument: > Environmental changes came about. Processed foods became mainstream. Those are definitely true, but those happened over time. The lifting of the sugar restrictions happened immediately at one date, and what is interesting is that you see such vastly, statistically significant differences in later diabetes and hypertension rates in babies that were born so close together (within a couple years), the main difference being their amount of sugar intake in very early childhood. It's not like they just looked at "pre-war" vs. "post-war" babies.
- willy_k 2y agoYes, but sugar having a substantial effect as observed does not rule out fat type also having some effect, perhaps as a modulator or synergistic process, such as sugar being the main driver but the body being less capable of coping with sugar when most of what it gets is dead food high in linoliec acid.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago> sugar having a substantial effect as observed does not rule out fat type also having some effect Nobody is arguing that it isn't or couldn't. The study does a pretty good job, IMO, of pinpointing sugar intake as an infant as having substantial, significant impact on diabetes and hypertension rates in adulthood. It is not saying that it is the only possible causal factor.
- meiraleal 2y agoSugar raising blood sugar seems like a quite obvious effect but some people argue against it. Edit: it doesn't need much to be smarter than you, waihtis
- waihtis 2y ago[flagged]
- 462436347 2y agoExercise temporarily raises your heart rate and systolic blood pressure, yet avid exercisers have lower RHRs and SBPs; how do you know it isn't the same with carbohydrates, provided fat (especially saturated) is restricted?
- omikun 2y agoAsk an endocrinologist. Robert Lustig has written extensively on the subject. This stuff has already been figured out. Here's one of his famous talks on sugar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmC4Rm5cpOI&pp=ygUNcm9iZXJ0IGx1c3RpZw%3D%3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmC4Rm5cpOI&pp=ygUNcm9iZXJ0I...
- EasyMark 2y agoThat is irrefutable. Eat 4 eggs fried in butter and then measure blood sugar an hour later vs eating the same amount of sugar by weight on separate days, on an empty (12 hour fast).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- midtake 2y agoGood luck convincing anyone of that without being called a crackpot, a disinformation bot, or worse. At this point in my life, I keep such knowledge to myself and leave everyone else to the peril of their own incomplete understanding.
- oliwarner 2y agoRigorous scientific study is more effective than luck.
- inglor_cz 2y agoRigorous scientific study in the nutrition field is extremely hard to do. Most studies rely on self-reported data, and people aren't very reliable in confessing what they ate and in what quantity. We are also a long-lived species and many effects take decades to manifest. Differences in environment (e.g. water impurities), genetics and gut microbiome confound the issue further.
- kergonath 2y agoTo avoid any doubt: there is no scientific basis for “imbalanced omega 3-6 ratio, which causes chronic inflammation which in turn is a central driver of diabetes”. There is no indication that omega-6 in human diet cause inflammation (we don’t eat that much of them, and they are readily metabolised). And as a matter of fact, diabetes is more strongly correlated with sugar than any kind of fat. Actually, the only people I have seen claiming this are conspiracy theorists who jumped on a new boogeyman.
- EasyMark 2y agoIt’s highly likely not one thing. We’ve moved to trash foods, more sugar, worse fats, etc, plus we’re more inactive than ever and being constantly bombarded by stress 24/7 from news and the internet and consumerist mentality.
- waihtis 2y agothank you for reading & comprehending the point, and not somehow concluding I'm claiming sugar doesn't raise blood sugar