|
LeeMajors posted:You know, it drives me crazy that DSV% is never listed for sugars. And Big Sugar wants to keep it that way. Because there's no separate value for it. Whether you get your recommended amount of carbs from plain sugars or a mix, neither should really cause you any issues so long as you ain't overeating carbs in general. It'd be like listing separate recommended values for variants of proteins, or having a specific value for non-saturated fats (though saturated fats have their own value because of metabolic reasons) Cole posted:It is also kind of stupid that sugar is measured in grams instead of teaspoons or a unit people actually measure sugar in. Did you ever stop to notice that the only measurements used on the nutrition facts panel for macronutrients are grams and milligrams? Also a teaspoon of sugar is a volume not a mass ya clown! And since food content for nutrition purposes is required to be measured in mass, making it in teaspoons doesn't make sense. Brannock posted:Why are we assuming dietary fat is unhealthy? Because that was the main diet fad from the late 70s to late 90s, so people still "know" that. None of the main macronutrient classes are inherently unhealthy, of course.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
Ironically the ostracism of fat people actually runs counter to the WHO's definition of health. I'm guessing the people who want to fine or arrest fat people probably actually don't care about their health and well being.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It's easier for someone with skill to cook delicious healthy food, and certain cuisines tend to be lower in fat, but you're trying generalize this into some sort of snobby bullshit about how plebe food is so much worse for you and you don't know what you're talking about. The fat being more varied or artfully handled does not make it less, and in my experience often makes it more because I/they know so much more they can do with fat then just dumping in butter. A master chef poaching something in duck fat isn't any more healthy then some high school kid dropping poo poo in the deep fryer at Applebees. Yes, but using fat is not a bad thing, nor is salt a bad thing in and of itself. Making lovely food palatable by cramming in fat and salt instead of flavour, and then serving it giant portions, is the problem because it leads to people over-eating and not getting a balanced diet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Why are we assuming dietary fat is unhealthy? Because its incredibly calorie dense and despite it not being inherently bad for you the chances that any particular poster in question is one of the special snowflakes that manages to eat a balanced high-fat calorie neutral diet is negligible. PT6A posted:Yes, but using fat is not a bad thing, nor is salt a bad thing in and of itself. Making lovely food palatable by cramming in fat and salt instead of flavour, and then serving it giant portions, is the problem because it leads to people over-eating and not getting a balanced diet. Salt isn't really bad for you at all unless you have a health condition that doesn't allow you to tolerate it in large amounts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
The meme that calorie dense = evil needs to die.PT6A posted:Yes, but using fat is not a bad thing, nor is salt a bad thing in and of itself. Making lovely food palatable by cramming in fat and salt instead of flavour, and then serving it giant portions, is the problem because it leads to people over-eating and not getting a balanced diet. This is like saying "well people just cram seasoning and spices in to food instead of flavor". Also a balanced diet is something normal people should only strive to have over multiple months, not really something that needs to be done daily.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Salt in the amounts used for most foods is indeed pretty bad for you. I remember when I used to work in a restaurant we used to make duck confit by literally encasing ducks in huge cartons of seasoned salt. Not just covering it in salt, literally submerging the entire duck in salt. We then used to poach the duck in hot fat, which for those of you who don't have a stick up your rear end is another way of saying "fried" We used to joke that the only difference between what we served and fried chicken was that ours didn't have the Colonel's Secret Spice Mix and cost 10 times more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Because there's no separate value for it. Whether you get your recommended amount of carbs from plain sugars or a mix, neither should really cause you any issues so long as you ain't overeating carbs in general. Why? Fat categories are subdivided. Vitamins are divided. Because added sugar is the most culpable macronutrient contributing to obesity. Seems like its concentration relative to other nutrients is pretty important.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Salt in the amounts used for most foods is indeed pretty bad for you. Yeah that's called salt boxing, I do the same thing when I make duck-breast prosciutto, and no its not bad for you unless you're sensitive to it. Also while health wise it doesn't make a difference poaching and frying are pretty much polar opposites and are not at all the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Why? Fat categories are subdivided. Vitamins are divided. Because a DV for sugar doesn't exist outside of picking a completely arbitrary number, its a carbohydrate. Those other things actually do have an ideal DV for each subdivision.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Because a DV for sugar doesn't exist outside of picking a completely arbitrary number, its a carbohydrate. Those other things actually do have an ideal DV for each subdivision. I understand that the FDA hasn't specifically recommended a DV, but other countries have a regulated recommended intake of sugar. It seems bizarre that we do not do the same--particularly when the nutrient in question is so consequential. There have been proposed changes that highlight how much sugar is *added*, and that's a really solid change to be made.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:I understand that the FDA hasn't specifically named a DV, but other countries have a regulated recommended intake of sugar. It seems bizarre that we do not do the same--particularly when the nutrient in question is so consequential. I didn't mean the FDA hasn't named a DV I mean they can't without picking an arbitrary number, which is what other countries that have recommended DVs have done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:34
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Why? Fat categories are subdivided. Vitamins are divided. The majority of labels don't provide %DV for unsaturated fats. Vitamins aren't interchangeable. None of the micronutrients are.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
"Added" sugars are nutritionally no different than other sugars, what's the point in requiring labeling for them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:"Added" sugars are nutritionally no different than other sugars, what's the point in requiring labeling for them? While no different nutritionally, there is value in being aware how much is native to the product and how much is added for taste. Effectronica posted:The majority of labels don't provide %DV for unsaturated fats. Vitamins aren't interchangeable. None of the micronutrients are. Granted on the vitamins, but DV% are assigned for unsaturated fats and there is no reason this distinction couldn't be made for sugar. Jarmak posted:I didn't mean the FDA hasn't named a DV I mean they can't without picking an arbitrary number, which is what other countries that have recommended DVs have done. Calling the recommendation 'arbitrary' as recommended by doctors and nutritionists seems a little silly. There is as much an an upper limit to healthy consumption of sugars as there is sodium. E: As I was reading through the proposed labeling changes, part of the proposal is to add %DV for added sugar so  it may not be a problem much longer.
LeeMajors fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Nov 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Just force Big Food to provide a visual representation of the amount of sugar per serving on each box. Example: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:While no different nutritionally, there is value in being aware how much is native to the product and how much is added for taste. Not really, any competitor can just make a "low sugar" version and advertise it that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Not really, any competitor can just make a "low sugar" version and advertise it that way. Sounds like a net positive, as opposed to hiding added sugar in your ingredient list under 6 different kinds of syrups.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Sounds like a net positive, as opposed to hiding added sugar in your ingredient list under 6 different kinds of syrups. No, I mean in the status quo people can just make a low sugar version.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
No one walks anywhere anymore. In North America, our built environment is completely devoid of any kind of human scale or walkability. A huge amount of our infrastructure and development is 100% oriented towards automobile access. When you build everything to convenience auto drivers, everyone will become an auto driver. This likely plays into the reason why most urban centres and walkable communities built prior to WWII tend to have lower rates of obesity (however, I am definitely not referring to those urban areas that have very little access to fresh food aka "food deserts").
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:No one walks anywhere anymore. In North America, our built environment is completely devoid of any kind of human scale or walkability. I live in a huge-rear end sprawling city (Calgary) and I still walk almost everywhere, because I consciously made the choice to live in a small apartment downtown instead of a larger apartment or house in the sprawling suburbs. People make the conscious choice to live in sprawling suburbia instead of in a denser urban area. I have absolutely no idea why, but they do!
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 20:42
|
|
sitchensis posted:No one walks anywhere anymore. In North America, our built environment is completely devoid of any kind of human scale or walkability. A huge amount of our infrastructure and development is 100% oriented towards automobile access. When you build everything to convenience auto drivers, everyone will become an auto driver. This likely plays into the reason why most urban centres and walkable communities built prior to WWII tend to have lower rates of obesity (however, I am definitely not referring to those urban areas that have very little access to fresh food aka "food deserts"). This happened decades before the obesity epidemic, and walking/biking everywhere will never be practical compared to mass transit or a car except in the event of a total societal collapse.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This happened decades before the obesity epidemic, and walking/biking everywhere will never be practical compared to mass transit or a car except in the event of a total societal collapse. Maybe in the US. There are many cities all over the world where walking is a viable option and biking is actually much faster than taking the car. I'm pretty convinced that cities can get too large and that ridiculous average commute times in places like London are massively detrimental to general health.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This happened decades before the obesity epidemic, and walking/biking everywhere will never be practical compared to mass transit or a car except in the event of a total societal collapse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Not everyone lives in a major city in Europe, that was his entire point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Europe is also facing an obesity crisis so I'm not sure "People aren't walking anymore" is really the answer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
If you were born in a country larger than a shoebox it's just too bad for you I guess.Tesseraction posted:Views evolve, and you've tended to espouse extreme views in the past, it's hardly unlikely for you to swing away from civil liberties. Considering I've been extreme in defense of the individual's liberties, it is unlikely. I mean, I have been at least from a non-Marxist, classical liberal perspective of rights a.k.a. the only one that matters IRL. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 21:58
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Ddraig posted:Europe is also facing an obesity crisis so I'm not sure "People aren't walking anymore" is really the answer. You can be pretty sure that there is more than one answer to this. "People aren't walking anymore" is actually a rather plausible reason, but only one of many. Also people in Europe are unfortunately walking much less than a few decades ago, even if there are a lot of cities like Amsterdam or Münster that have a fantastic bike infrastructure. It's not unheard of here that parents drive their children to school although it's only one kilometer away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Honj Steak posted:You can be pretty sure that there is more than one answer to this. "People aren't walking anymore" is actually a rather plausible reason, but only one of many. Also people in Europe are unfortunately walking much less than a few decades ago, even if there are a lot of cities like Amsterdam or Münster that have a fantastic bike infrastructure. It's not unheard of here that parents drive their children to school although it's only one kilometer away. Ironically, in Calgary, the sprawl is so bad that the school board's new policy is that every child should be no more than 1.5km from their bus stop, much less their actual school, so if your parents don't drive you, you're walking quite a bit!
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Honj Steak posted:You can be pretty sure that there is more than one answer to this. "People aren't walking anymore" is actually a rather plausible reason, but only one of many. Basically this. There is no one "cause" to the obesity epidemic, it's a whole bunch of scattered lovely things that have the cumulative effect of making it very easy to gain weight. It also has tons of intersections and is related to many, many fields of study. In my field of urban planning, it's generally accepted that the physical structure and layout of a community has public health outcomes. But, solving that won't solve obesity: see Europe as an example. Honestly the solutions are going to have to be shotgun in nature rather than targeted. The fix to obesity will have to come from many places at once. That said, given the enormous institutional frameworks that have to change in order to effectively reduce aggregate levels of obesity, does this mean we give individuals a free pass? What do you guys think?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Why? Fat categories are subdivided. Vitamins are divided. Vitamins are dozens of completely unrelated chemicals. Of course they're listed differently. Did you really not know that, because that's loving sad. Fat categories are subdivided but only saturated fats have a separate daily value and that's because there's long standing clinical data that overeating them as a proportion of your overall fats causes negative health outcomes. Simple sugars are already listed separately, they simply don't have a separate recommended value, nor do complex sugars. And there is no scientific basis for a specific limit on simple sugars as compared to other sugars as part of a lifelong diet. "Added sugar" isn't what the seperate sugars entry means and if you think that then you grossly misunderstand the labeling system. And there is 0 evidence that adding sugar is bad or creates different health outcome. It's simply not preferred because, duh, more sugar added equals more overall calories consumed. PT6A posted:Ironically, in Calgary, the sprawl is so bad that the school board's new policy is that every child should be no more than 1.5km from their bus stop, much less their actual school, so if your parents don't drive you, you're walking quite a bit! Uh, what kind of hosed up school system that was already busing was doing it so halfassed that the kids still had to walk a mile to the stop? I mean the typical guideline for school busing in the US is that you'll bus kids under a certain age to school if they're more than a mile by road away from school, and bus older kids if they're more than 2 miles (the specific values can be larger, sometimes 1.5 or 2 for the young kids and 3 or 4 for older kids). So it'd be kinda ridiculous to expect kids to walk 20-30 minutes for a much shorter bus ride. Unless what you mean by that is that Calgary, as many large American cities do, tries to put kids on the standard public transit system as much as possible, and the transit stops were now considered too far to serve the purpose in large swathes of the city? fishmech fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Nov 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Uh, what kind of hosed up school system that was already busing was doing it so halfassed that the kids still had to walk a mile to the stop? That's how bad the sprawl is! The city was expanding outward faster than schools could be built, so the required bus network is loving huge and they needed to cut costs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Vitamins are dozens of completely unrelated chemicals. Of course they're listed differently. Did you really not know that, because that's loving sad. Fat categories are subdivided but only saturated fats have a separate daily value and that's because there's long standing clinical data that overeating them as a proportion of your overall fats causes negative health outcomes. I do know that, an it was admittedly a poor example in mentioning that other categories are subdivided. Stricken. fishmech posted:Simple sugars are already listed separately, they simply don't have a separate recommended value, nor do complex sugars. And there is no scientific basis for a specific limit on simple sugars as compared to other sugars as part of a lifelong diet. None? So Europe's recommendations are completely arbitrary and not based on any reasonable advisable limit? C'mon man. fishmech posted:"Added sugar" isn't what the seperate sugars entry means and if you think that then you grossly misunderstand the labeling system. And there is 0 evidence that adding sugar is bad or creates different health outcome. It's simply not preferred because, duh, more sugar added equals more overall calories consumed. That isn't what I said. It is currently not part of the label, but it is part of a proposal for new labeling from the FDA--and it should be added. quote:8. Why are you proposing to require declaration of “added sugars?”
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This happened decades before the obesity epidemic Irrelevant. All experts agree that the rise in obesity is caused by a confluence of different factors, and sedentary lifestyles is absolutely one of them. Effectronica posted:and walking/biking everywhere will never be practical compared to mass transit or a car except in the event of a total societal collapse. You don't need to walk/bike everywhere. Just to your most common destinations: work, school, grocery store and the like. That would eliminate, say, ~80% of driving for most people, which would be a huge improvement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:None? So Europe's recommendations are completely arbitrary and not based on any reasonable advisable limit? C'mon man. Yes LeeMajors posted:That isn't what I said. It is currently not part of the label, but it is part of a proposal for new labeling from the FDA--and it should be added. Wow look, something else scientifically baseless and pandering to the idiotic "natural" movement, color me suprised
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Recommendations are recommendations and not necessarily completely objective, empirically definable hard limits. There is no doubt that eating a diet with lots of sugar in it is bad both for your teeth and overall health, the difficult thing is defining exactly what amount is too much. Writing advisable amounts of maximum daily sugar intake won't hurt anyone and might be even helpful to a few people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
From the tooth perspective, setting a DV for sugars makes about as much sense as one for trans fats. For overall health, it's difficult to differentiate "simple sugars" from other carbs at least if you're not diabetic. The only exception that that is fructose, which seems to start causing metabolic issues at around 50 grams per day: http://journals.lww.com/acsm-csmr/Abstract/2010/07000/Fructose,_Exercise,_and_Health.15.aspx
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
You can say that people walking more won't solve the obesity crisis while still thinking it will help. Walking/running/biking even 30 minutes a week makes anyone dramatically healthier. Even if people don't lose a lot of weight doing it, their cardiovascular health will improve and they will probably be happier. It sucks getting winded going up one flight of stairs. If you want people to lead healthier lives then promoting even a little more aerobic exercise is a good idea. If you want people to weigh less then what can we do besides making gastric bypass/amphetamines far more widely available? It seems like one reason people focus on childhood obesity so much, besides the fact that little kids with Type 2 Diabetes is sad, is that weight gain is easier to prevent than weight loss is to promote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
The kind of society where everything used in daily life is in walking distance and all transportation is necessary for is traveling between arcologies is one that is extremely implausible to ever emerge. This is another hobbyhorse, even if an arguably beneficial one when we ignore the full inanity, latching onto the obesity epidemic for legitimacy.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The kind of society where everything used in daily life is in walking distance and all transportation is necessary for is traveling between arcologies is one that is extremely implausible to ever emerge. Say what? That's basically my life, and it has been my life since I left the suburbs when I went to university. I have a car to use for those times I don't want to walk, or it's too far, or I have too much poo poo to carry, but I use it maybe once a week at most. I do 90% of the things I need to do simply by walking. It's not necessary we reach a car-free society to have an appreciable health benefit from walkability anyway, so your statement doesn't make a whole bunch of sense. All walking needs to do is be a very viable option for most tasks, and places already exist (even in North America) where this is clearly the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:17 |
|
PT6A posted:Say what? That's basically my life, and it has been my life since I left the suburbs when I went to university. I have a car to use for those times I don't want to walk, or it's too far, or I have too much poo poo to carry, but I use it maybe once a week at most. I do 90% of the things I need to do simply by walking. Think about what would be necessary to make everyone's workplace in walking distance, so that we can avoid sedentary notions like light rail or busses or subways. Think about the sort of cultural experiences that would be possible in a society like that which could be built today.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 00:38
|
|