3 ms·

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.

3 ms·

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.

by willy_k 2y ago

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.