5 ms·
Easier to understand does not mean simpler to solve. 40% of the U.S. is overweight, 11% are diabetic, etc etc. There is no such magnitude of a problem due to e
by aydyn 1y ago
Easier to understand does not mean simpler to solve.
40% of the U.S. is overweight, 11% are diabetic, etc etc. There is no such magnitude of a problem due to erythritol or artificial sweeteners.
If "too many calories" were easy to solve we would not have an epidemic of it.
- uncircle 1y agoSweeteners don’t solve the obesity epidemic, they make it worse. Bodies are complex systems with feedback, you cannot focus only on the amount of calories. If one is overweight, and keep reinforcing their dietary patterns by eating sweet food, caloric or not, they’re never gonna adapt to healthy eating which is barely sweet if at all. I’m speaking from an holistic point of view; the American idea of healthy food is twisted by commercial interests and only calories seem to count. Also, you forget that sweeteners still cause an insulin release and some research shows that their effect on metabolism might be even worse than sugar itself because, being zero calories, they do not contribute to the sense of “caloric satiety,” so for the same volume of food your body has released more insulin. It’s convenient for companies to claim sweeteners are safe and sugar is the devil, but consumers should take such a claim with a grain of salt. There is no silver bullet, and dietary sciences is a field of bad science and enormous commercial incentives to lie. A good rule of thumb is whatever we have consumed for thousands of years is likely not that bad. Sugar in quantities should be avoided, but elsewhere you have claimed that it is bad for you and I have to disagree with such hyperbole, compared to something we’ve eaten for less than 50 years created by food lobbies.
- Propelloni 1y agoNo, the GP is correct. The solution is simple. Calculate your daily passive calorie requirement, take in less calories and/or up active calorie requirement. Simple. Now, implementing this is hard or maybe impossible for many individuals, I'm not denying this. The solution is simple, but for some it is not easy to implement.
- rat9988 1y agoThis is word play on the meaning of word simple in "simple solution" that can mean both easy to do or easy to understand. This is orthogonal to the point being made.
- Jensson 1y agoIt is simple as in you know if its a problem for you or not. Most people can eat sugar without becoming fat.
- kreetx 1y agoYup. If more calories were a "simple problem to solve", how come it isn't solved?
- kelipso 1y agoIt is a simple problem to solve. Eat less, exercise more. Tons of people have done it successfully. Tons of people do it without even thinking about it. It’s just that some people have mental addictions or whatever problems that makes them want to overeat or not exercise enough. But the solution itself is simple and straightforward.
- kreetx 1y agoIf the "tons of people" in the first paragraph were multiples more than the "some people" in the second paragraph, then I would agree that the solution is simple. But the thing you describe in the second paragraph is what makes actually solving obesity hard. Using artificial sweeteners is one of the ways in countering the latter half of the puzzle.
- Propelloni 1y agoFair enough. To me, simple and easy are not the same thing. Chess is a simple game that's not easy to play. In the same vein, to me, "take in less calories than you burn" is a simple concept, but not easy to do. It doesn't make the concept wrong, though.
- birn559 1y agoOne problem is that for some people, the daily calories used by the body lowers when you reduce the calories intake (mostly by adjusting NEAT). So for some people it's harder to lose weight than for others.