|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:stop deflecting m8 and lol that sugar wasn't important over 100 years ago Submarine Sandpaper posted:in my life time nutrition has had the following axioms:  "Also some of those aren't 'nutrition', just nutjobs pushing diet fads. I don't think mainstream nutrition science has ever advocated paleo, or drinking vinegar, or eating gluten-free(outside of people with actual gluten sensitivites/celiac), or the pseudoscience classic 'alkaline food'. e: Although to be fair, people being unable to distinguish pseudoscience & puffed-up mainstream science reporting from actual science is a big problem in nutrition, along with a lot of other health-related fields. Haifisch fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Apr 16, 2018 |
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
DrNutt posted:By all means, give me a "pucker gun" example of sugar consumption from 100 years ago to own me. As though some historical example of a person consuming sugar means that somehow sugar consumption didn't explode exponentially in the 20th century. Bro, the slave trade was all built around sugar. By the 1700s it was very important poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:By all means, give me a "pucker gun" example of sugar consumption from 100 years ago to own me. As though some historical example of a person consuming sugar means that somehow sugar consumption didn't explode exponentially in the 20th century. Honey: most of the world. Hth
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Sugar wasn't an important part of anyone's diet until last century This is completely false, but you have fun with your alternative reality, friend! Haifisch posted:Sugar was important but the volume of sugar we eat has exploded over the last century. It's one of many reasons people have been getting fatter and fatter to the point we have an obesity crisis. In the same sense that the volume of fat and the volume of protein and the volume of everything else people eat exploded too, sure. Additionally you have serious changes in how much of the population in developed countries switched over from hard industrial and agricultural labor for 10+ hour days into modes of employment with a whole lot less physical effort involved - that article from earlier on Kenya newly needing to deal with obesity as people are moving into cities and taking up more sedentary jobs touches on it quite explicitly. Again, sugar use lately specifically spiked because there was a desire to cut down on fat, as fat was the boogeyman of the 70s-90s. I invite you to consider how in America, caloric sweetener use per capita peaked in 1999 and has been declining ever since: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Bro, the slave trade was all built around sugar. By the 1700s it was very important poo poo. this doesn't have anything to do with his claim about sugar consumption today vs. centuries ago, when it was a relative luxury salt and pepper used to be luxuries too for europeans, people consume way more of those now quote:The figures are astonishing. Britain's annual per capita consumption of sugar was 4lbs in 1704, 18lbs in 1800, 90lbs in 1901 - a 22-fold increase to the point where Britons had the highest sugar intake in Europe. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/13/lifeandhealth.britishidentity boner confessor fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Honey: most of the world. Hth obesity rates would plummet overnight if people had to fight bees every time they wanted to drink something sweetened
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:obesity rates would plummet overnight if people had to fight bees every time they wanted to drink something sweetened Honey in ancient texts can also refer to date honey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_honey
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Bro, the slave trade was all built around sugar. By the 1700s it was very important poo poo. Okay but was anyone actually consuming sugar at anything near 20th century levels? Submarine Sandpaper posted:Honey: most of the world. Hth Ah yes, people were consuming more than 100 lbs of honey per person per year at any point in recorded history, certainly. fishmech posted:This is completely false, but you have fun with your alternative reality, friend! Maybe you should post a graph going back a little farther, fishmech. It's a good thing sweetener use is declining but it's declining from levels that were already outrageous and the declining figure is still too drat high.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:obesity rates would plummet overnight if people had to fight bees every time they wanted to drink something sweetened I don't think you understand how easy it is to rob from a beehive. We've been doing it with minimal stinging since ancient egyptian times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
So, in ancient times, were they sweetening their soda with honey? Fanta Honey?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
this is the worst loving derail god drat fishmech
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:
No, those levels weren't "already outrageous", you're just projecting your personal tastes as valid - they aren't. That's half a century of data on caloric sweetener usage, which is also as far back as reliable data from the USDA goes. Your whole central thesis is "durr sugar is to blame". Well surely if sugar is what's to blame, then obesity rates should at least fall a little from when the peak sugar usage was right? I mean it's been many years since then so even if it's a thing that needs a lot of time lag to take effect we should see it. But what we see is that obesity rates continue to increase from 1999:  Sugar consumption in 2013-2014 is 85% of the consumption in 1999-2000, yet the obesity rate in children is 123% of 1999-2000 and the obesity rate in adults is also 123% of 1999-2000. Additionally the last pair of years with sugar consumption comparable to 2013-2014 happened, 1987-1988, the obesity rate is hard to tell as the reliable data segment is only available from a survey done over 1988-1994 inclusive. But at that data point, we see ~20% of adults obese and ~7% of children. Those are 54% and 41% of the rate in 2013-2014 with similar sugar intake. This is particularly important to observe with children, as while adults have had a very long time to gain weight, children haven't, and the children cohort for 2013-2014 would be people who have spent most to all of their lives after peak sugar consumption occurred.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
Fishmech, did you normalize the definitions of obese for those periods? I remember the definitions have changed but not what years. VVVV thank you! WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Fishmech, did you normalize the definitions of obese for those periods? I remember the definitions have changed but not what years. The definition of obese used for the data in question is "BMI 30 or more", which did not change between the NHANES III surveys of 1988-1994 and the data up to at least 2013-2014.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, those levels weren't "already outrageous", you're just projecting your personal tastes as valid - they aren't. That's half a century of data on caloric sweetener usage, which is also as far back as reliable data from the USDA goes. Maybe obesity rates aren't falling because sugar consumption, even in a modest decline, is still way too loving high? You sound like someone who never got over their mom telling them they can't have a second Mountain Dew.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Maybe obesity rates aren't falling because sugar consumption, even in a modest decline, is still way too loving high? This makes no sense. If sugar was what responsible for it, then a 15% reduction in its consumption should at the least reduce obesity to some degree. Instead, when sugar consumption went down 15% obesity rates went UP 23%. And again, even if there was a mechanism ensuring that once you ate a bunch of sugar you would forever for the rest of your life be fat, at least the rate of obesity in children should go down since younger kids would simply not eat as much sugar as time goes on, living in times with reduced sugar consumption. Yet child and adult obesity increased by that same rate. Dose-response, motherfucker. fishmech fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:This makes no sense. If sugar was what responsible for it, then a 15% reduction in its consumption should at the least reduce obesity to some degree. Instead, sugar consumption when sugar consumption went down 15% obesity rates went UP 23%. And again, even if there was a mechanism ensuring that once you ate a bunch of sugar you would forever for the rest of your life be fat, at least the rate of obesity in children should go down since younger kids would simply not eat as much sugar as time goes on, living in times with reduced sugar consumption. Yet child and adult obesity increased by that same rate. Well I guess you've proven there's no link between lovely sugar filled diets and any other, so I guess I'll just eat candy bars and drink sodas from now own and I sure my body will be fine. A calorie's a calorie, right? Thanks fishmech, master of nutrition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Well I guess you've proven there's no link between lovely sugar filled diets and any other, so I guess I'll just eat candy bars and drink sodas from now own and I sure my body will be fine. A calorie's a calorie, right? dont argue about fast food with fishmech. or anything really but he'll die on a hill made of whoppers
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 02:17
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:dont argue about fast food with fishmech. or anything really but he'll die on a hill made of whoppers Well in his case that's probably going to end up being far more literal than usual, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
fishmech is a gimmick poster whose sole motive is to claim the first hill they see and slowly bleed out on it (owlofcreamcheese is the same, which is why it's so funny when they fight), so any argument they're providing is, at best, in dubious faith
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Well I guess you've proven there's no link between lovely sugar filled diets and any other, so I guess I'll just eat candy bars and drink sodas from now own and I sure my body will be fine. A calorie's a calorie, right? You continue shrieking about sugar as the culprit when it's blatantly obvious that its consumption has been going down for nearly as long as this whole drat site has existed. What makes you incapable of understanding that it's utterly unscientific to continue to believe it has some special role? People are consuming less sugar than they have for nearly 20 years at this point in the US yet obesity continues to go up, so when are you going to admit that it's because everyone's eating a bunch of all things? Also you can live just fine on the soda and candy bars available these days but that's a whole different story. You've got an orthorexic fixation and should probably see a therapist about your hosed up relationship with food and religous need to blame sugar for everything wrong in your life. Magic Hate Ball posted:fishmech is a gimmick poster whose sole motive is to claim the first hill they see and slowly bleed out on it (owlofcreamcheese is the same, which is why it's so funny when they fight), so any argument they're providing is, at best, in dubious faith This isn't true at all, but ok dude. It's objectively true that quite large decreases in sugar consumption hasn't resulted in a decrease in American obesity, all the data's right out there. In fact, obesity continued to rise despite the change. This indicates (to no one's surprise who understands nutrition) that restriction of just one component of food would be utterly ridiculous to manage individual or population weight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
fishmech posted:but ok dude fishmech.txt
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You continue shrieking about sugar as the culprit when it's blatantly obvious that its consumption has been going down for nearly as long as this whole drat site has existed. What makes you incapable of understanding that it's utterly unscientific to continue to believe it has some special role? People are consuming less sugar than they have for nearly 20 years at this point in the US yet obesity continues to go up, so when are you going to admit that it's because everyone's eating a bunch of all things? Yes, to levels that are still higher than in the 1950s, let alone any other time in the 19th or 20th centuries. The problem is that your "large decrease" is still way more than humans consumed for most of human history. You are clearly an insane person and I hope you do not nor ever have any control over a dependent's nutrition. It's also pretty funny that I'm apparently the one with the problem who needs to see a therapist when all of your posts have been over the top hyper aggressive in the defense of junk food. And uh, as someone with Type 1 Diabetes, the bit about having a religious need to blame sugar for everything wrong in my life is pretty funny. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Yes, to levels that are still higher than in the 1950s, let alone any other time in the 19th or 20th centuries. The problem is that your "large decrease" is still way more than humans consumed for most of human history. Dude, it doesn't matter what the levels in 1950 were. It doesn't matter what humans consumed throughout most of history, because throughout most of history humanity was living on the edge of starvation. Sugar is not a magic compound. If it was the primary cause behind obesity, then reducing its consumption 15%+ from peak consumption in the US should have at least halted the growth in obesity if not shrank the rate of obesity. Instead, when sugar consumption went DOWN 15% obesity went UP 23%. This happened even among the cohort of children so that even high sugar consumption for decades on end that older people might experience and could cause permanent effects simply could not exist. Once again, junk food is not a real or useful concept of food. It's just a way to be a snob about what other people want to eat. And yeah boo hoo about you having diabetes. That's no excuse for thinking sugar is a magic demon that causes anyone's problems, anymore than someone lactose-intolerant should go around blaming everything on dairy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:And yeah boo hoo about you having diabetes. oh my god Debate & Discussion > The Retail Collapse of 2018: boo hoo about you having diabetes
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
The decline in sweetener consumption has coincided with an increase in fat consumption, mostly vegetable oils and cheese.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:The decline in sweetener consumption has coincided with an increase in fat consumption, mostly vegetable oils and cheese. And the increase in sugar consumption in the 70s-90s coincided in decreases in fat consumption. It was direct replacement because fat was the boogeyman then. It just goes to show that focusing on any one macronutrient is never the solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
Wow finally someone standing up for those much maligned fast food companies. Where else would I get my *squints at menu* 1500 calorie lunch combo meal. Truly good foods and not at all a huge loving problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
Spring Heeled Jack posted:Wow finally someone standing up for those much maligned fast food companies. Where else would I get my *squints at menu* 1500 calorie lunch combo meal. Truly good foods and not at all a huge loving problem. That's literally not a problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 04:00
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That's literally not a problem. E: n/m, ignored for a better life Spring Heeled Jack fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
Fishmech what’s your BMI
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 04:43
|
|
|
HEY NONG MAN posted:Fishmech what’s your BMI 23.6 what about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
Right on the cusp. Stay safe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
Debate & Discussion › The Nutritional Collapse of 2017: Murdered by Transfats
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 06:21
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:And uh, as someone with Type 1 Diabetes, the bit about having a religious need to blame sugar for everything wrong in my life is pretty funny. the biggest rear end in a top hat i ever met was a Type 1 Diabetic with a MASSIVE chip on his shoulder about how other people can eat crap and be all unhealthy but he's gotta pay attention to his diet. his deepest hatred was reserved for the obese and those who contracted Type 2 diabetes. the bitterness rolled off of him worse than any incel. don't be That Guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 06:43
|
|
|
Check out the supposedly horrible 1500 calories meal from burger King. Turns out it's fine because it's just a lunch and dont even cost 1500 cals
----------------
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
Domestic Amuse posted:Debate & Discussion › The Nutritional Collapse of 2017: Murdered by Transfats  Mods????
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 07:07
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I agree with fischmech. It's a dark day.  There's no good evidence that swapping bulk calorie sources between simple sugars, complex sugars, fats, or proteins while holding everything else constant changes health outcomes. It's a really hard thing to study though, since interventional studies ("eat this nutrient slurry for the next month") can't run very long and in observational studies you're trying to pair people up with their dopplegangers who are identical in every way except they ate more of a different macronutrient, but the same everything else (good matches mostly don't exist). Actual people don't eat calorie matched portions though. It's way easier to down a lot of calories from food that is sugary/fatty/salty. A big mac, fries, and a shake is 1900 calories and people certainly eat that for lunch alongside a full dinner, breakfast, and snacks. 1900 calories of lentils is 3.5lbs, which I'm pretty sure I'd be physically incapable of eating in one sitting. Diets that push people away from calorie dense, highly palatable foods work, but more from reducing total calorie intake than futzing with macronutrient proportions (and getting people to eat more fiber. That does have lots of medical consensus for long term health benefits) From a fast food industry standpoint, there's not a clear thing to do since 'make food taste worse' isn't a very good business strategy and 'make food less calorie dense while tasting the same' is something they'd love to do, but we don't know how
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
anecdotally I eat like absolute poo poo yet I’m still an Adonis
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
This is the stupidest possible conversation, and especially one that nobody should ever have with fishmech. You guys know perfectly well that he will never see anything to do with the actual experience of eating fast food and how it compares to home-made or other foods, and will just harp on about numbers and calories for the rest of linear time, completely ignoring the actuality of how people eat and are intended to eat fast food. McD's is no worse than any other food really, but it's designed to be so full of sugar and fat and salt that it's really really easy to just eat a poo poo load of it, which is bad news for dumb people that don't keep track of the calories they eat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 07:40
|
|