3 ms·

You’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. Pr

You’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 ago
Indeed. Its the same idiocy as was/is with cholesterole
- eastbound 2y ago
  Honestly, 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 ago
    The 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Because 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 ago
      Yes, 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.
    - waihtis 2y ago
      this is a fair point, but still: sugar might just be a diabetes catalyst on the condition other large changes have occurred (low exercise, high processed food diets, more stress etc.), and we don't know if the effect would've been the same since no conditions exist where diet, lifestyle and other factors remained completely static for a number of decades.

waihtis 2y ago

Indeed. Its the same idiocy as was/is with cholesterole

eastbound 2y ago
Honestly, 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 ago
  The 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 ago

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Because 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 ago
    Yes, 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.
  - waihtis 2y ago
    this is a fair point, but still: sugar might just be a diabetes catalyst on the condition other large changes have occurred (low exercise, high processed food diets, more stress etc.), and we don't know if the effect would've been the same since no conditions exist where diet, lifestyle and other factors remained completely static for a number of decades.