5 ms·

We're finding out that fat [1] isn't actually bad for you, now salt, too. I wonder if we'll find out sugar is good for us, too, before long. [1] http://online.

We're finding out that fat [1] isn't actually bad for you, now salt, too. I wonder if we'll find out sugar is good for us, too, before long. [1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230367840...

notthetup 12y ago
I'm pretty sure we will. At the end of the day it's the amount of each that's consumed that matters. As the old adage goes, everything is fine in moderation.
- icelancer 12y ago
  Or specifically, the laws of thermodynamics still apply.
learc83 12y ago
There's been some evidence that sugar is actually worse for you that we used to think. It makes a bit of sense really. Fat and salt has always been part of the human diet, but large quantities of refined sugar are very recent.
- shard972 12y ago
  Which is why America puts bread at the base of the food Pyramid, can't get enough of that sweet sugar.
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    As we've read in the recent front page article about cereal. The food and agricultural lobby is heavily involved in "recommended food pyramid" agenda. The most recent change I think was to make it a strange looking thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_guide_pyramid#mediaviewer/File:MyPyramidFood.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_guide_pyramid#mediaviewer... With "milk" being it own category. (Hello Milk Lobby) and then some humanoid shape running up the stairs. Basically the message is "eat whatever is marketed to you, but if you get fat is because you didn't run up the stairs enough".
    - userbinator 12y ago
      It has now turned into this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyPlate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyPlate
- ekianjo 12y ago
  > It makes a bit of sense really. Fat and salt has always been part of the human diet, but large quantities of refined sugar are very recent. That kind of reasoning is very much flawed. Why would the diet of x years ago be relevant versus having a better diet nowadays ? For all we know, our ancestors were eating berries and much less meat than we do, yet we seem to live longer those days and yet we ingest substances (such as medicines) that were not part of the human diet before. Actually, that line of reasoning does not make sense at all. That's why we run clinical studies. To find out answers.
  - quattrofan 12y ago
    Possibly but two things to consider: - big factor in longer life spans are the advances in medicine last 150 years - our increase in meat consumption and cooked meat goes ways back and likely tied to our (threefold) increase in brain size
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      We have been eating meat for a long time, but the quantity of meat eaten since the second half of the 20th century is unprecedented. We are eating way more meat than before, that's for sure.
      - learc83 12y ago
        >he quantity of meat eaten since the second half of the 20th century is unprecedented. That's not true at all. We're eating more meat than we did 100 years ago sure. But looking back significantly further than that, it's estimated that hunter gatherers got about 65% of their calories from animals, compared to much less than 20% we get today. See my reply above for references.
        ekianjo 12y ago
        I'll check you references later, but I'm wondering where the hunter gatherers got so much meat before they had industrial meat factories that we have - it cost much more energy before to either hunt or breed animals than it does now, it was not a viable proposition to eat as much meat as it is now. It just does not make sense to me at all. Besides, percentages is one thing, absolute intakes are another, too. EDIT: Besides, I can tell you from what I know on how people were living 50-70 years ago (grandfathers for example) that meat was expensive during their youth and that they only ate it once or twice a month, certainly not every single day like we do now. So I'm not sure where you got the impression people ate so much meat in the early 1900s while it defies all conversations I had with people who lived in that era.
illumen 12y ago
Arg. The findings are that low salt is bad for you, which is what people have thought for ages. They did NOT find high salt wasn't actually bad for you.
rdtsc 12y ago
There was actually a study done a while back looking if sugar causes "hyperactivity" in children. You know your typical cliché "kids ate cake, and now they are so hyper running around". And I believe they found that sugar does not cause hyperactivity, but somehow discovered that it helped either remember events better or learn new things. Now looking back I think I had experienced that myself -- I remember my mom made some strawberry jam and I was eating it with a spoon for whatever reason, and it was while studying for a final oral exam in history (this is a different country, were we had to memorize and answer all 50 or so questions and then we'd be questioned on it orally by student). Anyway that one instance, out of many instances in years before before and after, I was remembering and at much higher rate. At least high enough to be noticeable to me. Seeing the study years later kind of confirmed it.
- defen 12y ago
  Well, the brain does run on glucose...

notthetup 12y ago

I'm pretty sure we will. At the end of the day it's the amount of each that's consumed that matters. As the old adage goes, everything is fine in moderation.

icelancer 12y ago
Or specifically, the laws of thermodynamics still apply.

learc83 12y ago

There's been some evidence that sugar is actually worse for you that we used to think. It makes a bit of sense really. Fat and salt has always been part of the human diet, but large quantities of refined sugar are very recent.

shard972 12y ago
Which is why America puts bread at the base of the food Pyramid, can't get enough of that sweet sugar.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  As we've read in the recent front page article about cereal. The food and agricultural lobby is heavily involved in "recommended food pyramid" agenda. The most recent change I think was to make it a strange looking thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_guide_pyramid#mediaviewer/File:MyPyramidFood.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_guide_pyramid#mediaviewer... With "milk" being it own category. (Hello Milk Lobby) and then some humanoid shape running up the stairs. Basically the message is "eat whatever is marketed to you, but if you get fat is because you didn't run up the stairs enough".
  - userbinator 12y ago
    It has now turned into this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyPlate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyPlate
ekianjo 12y ago
> It makes a bit of sense really. Fat and salt has always been part of the human diet, but large quantities of refined sugar are very recent. That kind of reasoning is very much flawed. Why would the diet of x years ago be relevant versus having a better diet nowadays ? For all we know, our ancestors were eating berries and much less meat than we do, yet we seem to live longer those days and yet we ingest substances (such as medicines) that were not part of the human diet before. Actually, that line of reasoning does not make sense at all. That's why we run clinical studies. To find out answers.
- quattrofan 12y ago
  Possibly but two things to consider: - big factor in longer life spans are the advances in medicine last 150 years - our increase in meat consumption and cooked meat goes ways back and likely tied to our (threefold) increase in brain size
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    We have been eating meat for a long time, but the quantity of meat eaten since the second half of the 20th century is unprecedented. We are eating way more meat than before, that's for sure.
    - learc83 12y ago
      >he quantity of meat eaten since the second half of the 20th century is unprecedented. That's not true at all. We're eating more meat than we did 100 years ago sure. But looking back significantly further than that, it's estimated that hunter gatherers got about 65% of their calories from animals, compared to much less than 20% we get today. See my reply above for references.
      - ekianjo 12y ago
        I'll check you references later, but I'm wondering where the hunter gatherers got so much meat before they had industrial meat factories that we have - it cost much more energy before to either hunt or breed animals than it does now, it was not a viable proposition to eat as much meat as it is now. It just does not make sense to me at all. Besides, percentages is one thing, absolute intakes are another, too. EDIT: Besides, I can tell you from what I know on how people were living 50-70 years ago (grandfathers for example) that meat was expensive during their youth and that they only ate it once or twice a month, certainly not every single day like we do now. So I'm not sure where you got the impression people ate so much meat in the early 1900s while it defies all conversations I had with people who lived in that era.

illumen 12y ago

Arg. The findings are that low salt is bad for you, which is what people have thought for ages. They did NOT find high salt wasn't actually bad for you.

rdtsc 12y ago

There was actually a study done a while back looking if sugar causes "hyperactivity" in children. You know your typical cliché "kids ate cake, and now they are so hyper running around". And I believe they found that sugar does not cause hyperactivity, but somehow discovered that it helped either remember events better or learn new things. Now looking back I think I had experienced that myself -- I remember my mom made some strawberry jam and I was eating it with a spoon for whatever reason, and it was while studying for a final oral exam in history (this is a different country, were we had to memorize and answer all 50 or so questions and then we'd be questioned on it orally by student). Anyway that one instance, out of many instances in years before before and after, I was remembering and at much higher rate. At least high enough to be noticeable to me. Seeing the study years later kind of confirmed it.

defen 12y ago
Well, the brain does run on glucose...