5 ms·

> US sugar consumption declined from 2000-2020 to 1970s levels, while its T2D prevalence only increased Seems like you are cherry picking data and ignoring oth

> US sugar consumption declined from 2000-2020 to 1970s levels, while its T2D prevalence only increased Seems like you are cherry picking data and ignoring other data from the chart - sure the total sugars from 2000-2020 are down slightly while what’s being labeled as “corn sweeteners” or HFCS is up 3x. Since you mention diabetes it’s probably worth noting from 1970-1985 “corn sweeteners” more than 3x and before 1985 T2D was called adult onset diabetes considered an adult disease and 1983 was the first case of pediatric nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. > Meanwhile tribes of hunter-gatherers in Africa get 15-80% of their daily calories from honey during certain seasons; The chart shows honey is a nominal source of sugar for Americans. There are other facts about honey, like its low glycemic index compared to other forms so it doesn’t raise blood sugar levels as dramatically as regular sugar and especially HFCS. The fact is the US government just lumps all forms of sugar together and labels it all genetically as sugar…ignores there are different forms of sugar, each processed by our bodies differently and having different metabolic impacts and harms. People will spend the next 100 if not 1000 years arguing if sugar is responsible for metabolic diseases like T2D and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease - yet it’s settled now that T2D & NAFLD are both 100% preventable diseases and in some cases T2D can be reversed by minimizing sugars/carbs and increasing fats so your mitochondria is primarily using ketones rather than glucose.

AI_beffr 2y ago
yup. seed oils also play a role
- manmal 2y ago
  Do you mean oils that have turned rancid before they are consumed? I don’t really get the hate seed oils are getting. In studies they seem to have shown no ill effects. They do certainly use oils in studies that are not rancid, while your average supermarket oil might be (?).
  - fellowmartian 2y ago
    The problem is linoleic acid and our overconsumption of it. It seems to cause way more oxidative stress during metabolism, to which the brain is more sensitive. Plus it also seems to adversely affect metabolism of other kinds of fats. And it plasticizes during cooking.
    - hombre_fatal 2y ago
      Those sound more like RFK Jr talking points than anything born from research on human health outcomes where all of this speculation goes to die.
      - pests 2y ago
        Linoleic acid also blocks absorbsion of DHA. The idea being in the past the only linoleic acid we would be getting was from whatever seeds we consumed naturally. With the advent of industry it's now a 20B+ business. It was hard for humans to consume so much seed oil in the past.
      - sizzle 2y ago
        For the plasticizing bit check out this video for some n=1 evidence: https://youtu.be/Ra_tCL5-4c0 https://youtu.be/Ra_tCL5-4c0
  - Amezarak 2y ago
    Without a literature review, they'd certainly be a number one suspect. Consider this statement elsewhere in the thread: > before 1985 T2D was called adult onset diabetes considered an adult disease and 1983 was the first case of pediatric nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. We've eaten sugar and saturated fats for ages. Of course, not everyone ate the same amounts that people do today - but we'd expect someone to be feeding their kid enough bacon (which people ate huge amounts of even ~100 years ago relative today) to give them fatty liver disease, if e.g., its saturated fats, or feeding them enough sugar. But what people didn't eat, almost at all, was seed oils. Canola oil was not consumed at all before the 1970s - canola is a CANadian scientist created version of rape Oil, with Low Acid - rape oil itself being too poisonous/bitter to eat. Soybean oil was practically unheard of. Cottonseed oil (aka Crisco) was just being invented as a wonderfood, here to solve our problems. Today these oils, particularly soybean and canola, are the second highest source of calories in the average American diet, and the single highest source of fats. We're suddenly beset by major metabolic problems, from heart disease, obesity, fatty liver, T2D, that did not exist or existed in much smaller proportions, even in historical populations where people were eating tons of bacon or sugar. Meanwhile, we have a food source that went from "negligible" to "one of our main sources of calories." It's not proof, there are almost certainly other factors involved as well, but it's really, really suspicious. Making matters worse, what you feed animals also impacts the fat composition of their meat, and we now feed cows and pigs canola and soy.
    - p_j_w 2y ago
      > before 1985 T2D was called adult onset diabetes considered an adult disease and 1983 was the first case of pediatric nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. This statement is factually false, though: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589555921000379#:~:text=Fatty%20liver%20had%20been%20identified,steatohepatitis%20(NASH)%20in%201980 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258955592.... It may not have been explicitly called that, but it was clearly shown to exist. This is not some new phenomenon that first popped up after the introduction of seed oil.
      - throwawaycities 2y ago
- iamacyborg 2y ago
  What media do you consume to believe nonsense like this?
  - AI_beffr 2y ago
    paul saladino
- astrange 2y ago
  "Seed oils" are a nonsensical category because the main example is canola oil which doesn't actually have the problems associated with them (bad omega-3:6 ratios).
  - pfannkuchen 2y ago
    I thought the problem with seed oils is that seeds don’t want you to eat them and their chemistry may reflect that. Fruit bodies such as olives on the other hand are “designed” to be eaten and so aren’t likely to have such defenses.
    - astrange 2y ago
      Depends on who's not supposed to be eating them. A lot of things in plants are there to repel insects but we like it or they're nutritious for us. Caffeine, for example. But the problem with seed oils is supposed to be that they're inflammatory and can oxidize (ie go rancid.)
      - pfannkuchen 2y ago
        It just has to be mammals in general. If e.g. a rape seed doesn’t want to be eaten by squirrels, to take a common seed eating mammal, there’s a decent chance that as mammals we share enough in common that whatever surface is being targeted in squirrels would affect us as well. If something was specifically targeting birds or reptiles then it may not affect humans, but are the seeds in question in environments without mammals? I don’t think so?
    - BobaFloutist 2y ago
      Olives are a pretty weird example of something that "wants" to be eaten by us, given the insane amount of processing it takes to make anything remotely palatable from them. Contrast with, say, sesame or sunflower seeds which can be eaten straight from the plant raw, or pumpkin seeds which just need a simple roast and peel, I'm not sure that your categorical assertion really holds up, as intuitive as it may seem.
462436347 2y ago
> Seems like you are cherry picking data and ignoring other data from the chart - sure the total sugars from 2000-2020 are down slightly while what’s being labeled as “corn sweeteners” or HFCS is up 3x HFCS consumption is still higher than it was in 1970, but it has declined since 2000, and its decline has driven the overall decline in sugar consumption, yet obesity and diabetes incidence have only increased. > some cases T2D can be reversed by minimizing sugars/carbs and increasing fats so your mitochondria is primarily using ketones rather than glucose. "Reversed" means you can eat carbohydrates normally again. If anything, high-fat, low-carb diets seem to worsen actual insulin sensitivity, which carbohydrate restriction just masks (even then, not always, as many on keto find when they check their BG): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5291812/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5291812/ Severely restricting carbohydrate enough to get an artificially low HbA1c or fasting BG and claiming you "reversed" diabetes is like claiming you "reversed" your lactose intolerance by never drinking milk. But actual weight-loss (however you achieve it) does improve real insulin sensitivity, but low-carb isn't magic when it comes to that either.
- throwawaycities 2y ago
  >HFCS consumption is still higher than it was in 1970, but it has declined since 2000, and its decline has driven the overall decline in sugar consumption, yet obesity and diabetes incidence have only increased. Because metabolic diseases are progressive chronic conditions. That’s why T2D & fatty liver were historically adult diseases, it’s not because throughout history people gradually increased sugar consumption as they got older and got the diseases, rather the metabolic damage progressed. In short when you are over consuming sugar for 20 years and see obesity, T2D and fatty liver disease increase you don’t necessarily expect to see it decrease even if sugar use slightly decreases…if you want to decrease or eliminate T2D/fatty liver disease then eliminate the sugar. >"Reversed" means you can eat carbohydrates normally again. That’s not what “reversing diabetes” means, it means getting off insulin because you manage your BG through diet and lifestyle. >Severely restricting carbohydrate enough to get an artificially low HbA1c or fasting BG and claiming you "reversed" diabetes is like claiming you "reversed" your lactose intolerance by never drinking milk. It’s just not a good metaphor because your definition of “reverse” is returning to eating carbs normally was wrong. Lactose intolerance is an acute reaction related to inability to produce an enzyme to breakdown and digest lactose - it’s managed not treated with medication, though some may take the enzyme lactase. Further, taking lactase because you’re lactose intolerant and want to eat some ice cream tonight is in no way comparable to having T2D and the need to take insulin.
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> The fact is the US government just lumps all forms of sugar together and labels it all genetically as sugar…ignores there are different forms of sugar, each processed by our bodies differently and having different metabolic impacts and harms. At the same time, these differences can be overstated. E.g. look at how "added sugar" is distinct from other carbohydrates but no "total sugar" metric on nutritional boxes on food products.
- Etheryte 2y ago
  Just for context, total sugar is the only thing shown on European food labels. Makes it somewhat annoying the other way around, it's hard to figure out if it's just the sugars the ingredients contained or if it's stuffed with extra. I prefer this worry over the other option though. In a perfect world we would have both.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    The US does have both as of 2018: https://www.fda.gov/media/99331/download https://www.fda.gov/media/99331/download It has had total sugars for as long as I've known the labels, and was changed in 2018 to break out added sugars. I'm not at all sure what OP is thinking.
  - illiac786 2y ago
    If sugar is added, it’s in the ingredients list in the EU. They are sorted by decreasing amount, hence while you won’t be able to tell exactly how much was added, you can narrow it down. But sometimes they add different sugar types and it becomes really difficult to estimate the quantity of added sugar. Hence I would say it’s easy to know if sugar is added if you know the names it goes by. But it’s difficult to know how much.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > E.g. look at how "added sugar" is distinct from other carbohydrates but no "total sugar" metric on nutritional boxes on food products. I had to go check a few labels to be sure, but this is absolutely not true in the US—each nutrition label has a "total sugars" category that additionally breaks out the added sugars from the total sugar. See the example on this page [0], and discussion of the sugars lines here [1]. Also see this PDF showing the differences in the 2018 nutrition facts label from the old one [2], which clearly shows total sugars have been there in at least the last two iterations. Maybe you're thinking of the fact that there's no daily value listed? [0] https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-education-resources-materials/nutrition-facts-label https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-education-resources-mater... [1] https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-facts-label/added-sugars-nutrition-facts-label https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-facts-label/added-sugars-... [2] https://www.fda.gov/media/99331/download https://www.fda.gov/media/99331/download

AI_beffr 2y ago

yup. seed oils also play a role

manmal 2y ago
Do you mean oils that have turned rancid before they are consumed? I don’t really get the hate seed oils are getting. In studies they seem to have shown no ill effects. They do certainly use oils in studies that are not rancid, while your average supermarket oil might be (?).
- fellowmartian 2y ago
  The problem is linoleic acid and our overconsumption of it. It seems to cause way more oxidative stress during metabolism, to which the brain is more sensitive. Plus it also seems to adversely affect metabolism of other kinds of fats. And it plasticizes during cooking.
  - hombre_fatal 2y ago
    Those sound more like RFK Jr talking points than anything born from research on human health outcomes where all of this speculation goes to die.
    - pests 2y ago
      Linoleic acid also blocks absorbsion of DHA. The idea being in the past the only linoleic acid we would be getting was from whatever seeds we consumed naturally. With the advent of industry it's now a 20B+ business. It was hard for humans to consume so much seed oil in the past.
    - sizzle 2y ago
      For the plasticizing bit check out this video for some n=1 evidence: https://youtu.be/Ra_tCL5-4c0 https://youtu.be/Ra_tCL5-4c0
- Amezarak 2y ago
  Without a literature review, they'd certainly be a number one suspect. Consider this statement elsewhere in the thread: > before 1985 T2D was called adult onset diabetes considered an adult disease and 1983 was the first case of pediatric nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. We've eaten sugar and saturated fats for ages. Of course, not everyone ate the same amounts that people do today - but we'd expect someone to be feeding their kid enough bacon (which people ate huge amounts of even ~100 years ago relative today) to give them fatty liver disease, if e.g., its saturated fats, or feeding them enough sugar. But what people didn't eat, almost at all, was seed oils. Canola oil was not consumed at all before the 1970s - canola is a CANadian scientist created version of rape Oil, with Low Acid - rape oil itself being too poisonous/bitter to eat. Soybean oil was practically unheard of. Cottonseed oil (aka Crisco) was just being invented as a wonderfood, here to solve our problems. Today these oils, particularly soybean and canola, are the second highest source of calories in the average American diet, and the single highest source of fats. We're suddenly beset by major metabolic problems, from heart disease, obesity, fatty liver, T2D, that did not exist or existed in much smaller proportions, even in historical populations where people were eating tons of bacon or sugar. Meanwhile, we have a food source that went from "negligible" to "one of our main sources of calories." It's not proof, there are almost certainly other factors involved as well, but it's really, really suspicious. Making matters worse, what you feed animals also impacts the fat composition of their meat, and we now feed cows and pigs canola and soy.
  - p_j_w 2y ago
    > before 1985 T2D was called adult onset diabetes considered an adult disease and 1983 was the first case of pediatric nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. This statement is factually false, though: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589555921000379#:~:text=Fatty%20liver%20had%20been%20identified,steatohepatitis%20(NASH)%20in%201980 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258955592.... It may not have been explicitly called that, but it was clearly shown to exist. This is not some new phenomenon that first popped up after the introduction of seed oil.
    - throwawaycities 2y ago
iamacyborg 2y ago
What media do you consume to believe nonsense like this?
- AI_beffr 2y ago
  paul saladino
astrange 2y ago
"Seed oils" are a nonsensical category because the main example is canola oil which doesn't actually have the problems associated with them (bad omega-3:6 ratios).
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  I thought the problem with seed oils is that seeds don’t want you to eat them and their chemistry may reflect that. Fruit bodies such as olives on the other hand are “designed” to be eaten and so aren’t likely to have such defenses.
  - astrange 2y ago
    Depends on who's not supposed to be eating them. A lot of things in plants are there to repel insects but we like it or they're nutritious for us. Caffeine, for example. But the problem with seed oils is supposed to be that they're inflammatory and can oxidize (ie go rancid.)
    - pfannkuchen 2y ago
      It just has to be mammals in general. If e.g. a rape seed doesn’t want to be eaten by squirrels, to take a common seed eating mammal, there’s a decent chance that as mammals we share enough in common that whatever surface is being targeted in squirrels would affect us as well. If something was specifically targeting birds or reptiles then it may not affect humans, but are the seeds in question in environments without mammals? I don’t think so?
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    Olives are a pretty weird example of something that "wants" to be eaten by us, given the insane amount of processing it takes to make anything remotely palatable from them. Contrast with, say, sesame or sunflower seeds which can be eaten straight from the plant raw, or pumpkin seeds which just need a simple roast and peel, I'm not sure that your categorical assertion really holds up, as intuitive as it may seem.

462436347 2y ago

> Seems like you are cherry picking data and ignoring other data from the chart - sure the total sugars from 2000-2020 are down slightly while what’s being labeled as “corn sweeteners” or HFCS is up 3x HFCS consumption is still higher than it was in 1970, but it has declined since 2000, and its decline has driven the overall decline in sugar consumption, yet obesity and diabetes incidence have only increased. > some cases T2D can be reversed by minimizing sugars/carbs and increasing fats so your mitochondria is primarily using ketones rather than glucose. "Reversed" means you can eat carbohydrates normally again. If anything, high-fat, low-carb diets seem to worsen actual insulin sensitivity, which carbohydrate restriction just masks (even then, not always, as many on keto find when they check their BG): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5291812/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5291812/ Severely restricting carbohydrate enough to get an artificially low HbA1c or fasting BG and claiming you "reversed" diabetes is like claiming you "reversed" your lactose intolerance by never drinking milk. But actual weight-loss (however you achieve it) does improve real insulin sensitivity, but low-carb isn't magic when it comes to that either.

throwawaycities 2y ago
>HFCS consumption is still higher than it was in 1970, but it has declined since 2000, and its decline has driven the overall decline in sugar consumption, yet obesity and diabetes incidence have only increased. Because metabolic diseases are progressive chronic conditions. That’s why T2D & fatty liver were historically adult diseases, it’s not because throughout history people gradually increased sugar consumption as they got older and got the diseases, rather the metabolic damage progressed. In short when you are over consuming sugar for 20 years and see obesity, T2D and fatty liver disease increase you don’t necessarily expect to see it decrease even if sugar use slightly decreases…if you want to decrease or eliminate T2D/fatty liver disease then eliminate the sugar. >"Reversed" means you can eat carbohydrates normally again. That’s not what “reversing diabetes” means, it means getting off insulin because you manage your BG through diet and lifestyle. >Severely restricting carbohydrate enough to get an artificially low HbA1c or fasting BG and claiming you "reversed" diabetes is like claiming you "reversed" your lactose intolerance by never drinking milk. It’s just not a good metaphor because your definition of “reverse” is returning to eating carbs normally was wrong. Lactose intolerance is an acute reaction related to inability to produce an enzyme to breakdown and digest lactose - it’s managed not treated with medication, though some may take the enzyme lactase. Further, taking lactase because you’re lactose intolerant and want to eat some ice cream tonight is in no way comparable to having T2D and the need to take insulin.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

> The fact is the US government just lumps all forms of sugar together and labels it all genetically as sugar…ignores there are different forms of sugar, each processed by our bodies differently and having different metabolic impacts and harms. At the same time, these differences can be overstated. E.g. look at how "added sugar" is distinct from other carbohydrates but no "total sugar" metric on nutritional boxes on food products.

Etheryte 2y ago
Just for context, total sugar is the only thing shown on European food labels. Makes it somewhat annoying the other way around, it's hard to figure out if it's just the sugars the ingredients contained or if it's stuffed with extra. I prefer this worry over the other option though. In a perfect world we would have both.
- lolinder 2y ago
  The US does have both as of 2018: https://www.fda.gov/media/99331/download https://www.fda.gov/media/99331/download It has had total sugars for as long as I've known the labels, and was changed in 2018 to break out added sugars. I'm not at all sure what OP is thinking.
- illiac786 2y ago
  If sugar is added, it’s in the ingredients list in the EU. They are sorted by decreasing amount, hence while you won’t be able to tell exactly how much was added, you can narrow it down. But sometimes they add different sugar types and it becomes really difficult to estimate the quantity of added sugar. Hence I would say it’s easy to know if sugar is added if you know the names it goes by. But it’s difficult to know how much.
lolinder 2y ago
> E.g. look at how "added sugar" is distinct from other carbohydrates but no "total sugar" metric on nutritional boxes on food products. I had to go check a few labels to be sure, but this is absolutely not true in the US—each nutrition label has a "total sugars" category that additionally breaks out the added sugars from the total sugar. See the example on this page [0], and discussion of the sugars lines here [1]. Also see this PDF showing the differences in the 2018 nutrition facts label from the old one [2], which clearly shows total sugars have been there in at least the last two iterations. Maybe you're thinking of the fact that there's no daily value listed? [0] https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-education-resources-materials/nutrition-facts-label https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-education-resources-mater... [1] https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-facts-label/added-sugars-nutrition-facts-label https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-facts-label/added-sugars-... [2] https://www.fda.gov/media/99331/download https://www.fda.gov/media/99331/download