Everything about public health policy sucks. The best way to improve nutrition and health is by making eating healthy affordable and easy. It’s too hard and expensive for working people to prepare healthy meals for a family also working 40+ hours a week.
So many myths and pseudoscience around health, wellness, etc. Basically everything that is talked about is based on really shaky science at best, and outright lies and nonsense at worst. Way too much emphasis is put on weight loss, dieting, waist circumference and so on. Dieting is hugely unhealthy, weight cycling (losing and regaining weight) has worse health implications than just remaining at your original weight, and for most people the weight they are is fine, the health risks around weight are hugely overstated. The BMI is a worthless metric without any scientific basis. Almost everything that people say about sugar is wrong - it’s not physiologically addictive, it doesn’t cause hyperactivity and it’s not poisonous, and it doesn’t cause type 2 diabetes - the causes of type 2 diabetes are generally not well understood.
The most important thing is having a varied diet with some fruit and vegetables and getting some regular activity - something that you enjoy! Doesn’t have to be major or whatever, if it’s just going for a walk or paintball or whatever, that’s great!
Fad diets are hugely unhealthy, in general, and should be avoided.
I feel like you’re taking a grain of truth way too far. The diet-health connection is subtle and poorly understood, but being morbidly obese or eating a really unvaried, processed diet are definitely known to cause harm.
BMI is shitty because it’s too coarse a measure at the individual level. Unfortunately a volumetric scan to measure internal visceral fat just isn’t as convenient.
Having a very high weight is known to cause harm, but so is having a low weight, and so is skydiving. Dieting is more harmful to 90% of us than our waistline is, and yet we approve of dieting and refer to fat people as an epidemic.
Yes, because there’s a sudden abundance of overweight people, not underweight people. Epidemic refers to any sudden population increase of a health problem. I don’t think public health people mean it to be stigmitising.
Dieting is dumb though, you’re right about that. At least locally the authorities try to be clear that you’ve got to make a lasting lifestyle change.
There’s no real evidence that there are significant average weight differences between today and 70 years ago. Differences in the proportion of the population of “overweight” people is primarily due to changing the definition of what constitutes overweight.
And being fat isn’t a “disease”, any more than having big feet is.
I’m guessing you’ll ignore any evidence I provide based on BMI, which is the only useful form of weight information available at the historical population level (given that it’s based on weight and height, which has also changed)?
Yes, because BMI is complete junk science. The BMI categories have been changed several times since it was created. It was also devised to work exclusively for white european men. It’s totally worthless for almost every purpose for which it is used.
Well then, congratulations, you’ve arrived at a stance you can never be argued out of regardless of it’s truth.
Healthy food doesn’t get advertising or status symbolism. When’s the last time you saw an ad for cabbage, carrots, or dry lentils?
The affordability is less of a problem than you think.
If healthy foods like fruits, vegetables, grains, beans, pulses, etc. were subsidised instead of animal products then they’d essentially be free. Affordability is a huge problem, at least here in the UK. Thousands of people use food banks because they’re struggling with the cost of living. vegan btw
Grains and beans being subsidized would be great, but it would probably make them negative in price. You’d get paid to get them from a store.
People who think that “vegan diet” or “plant based diet” means “you eat mostly fruits and veggies” are simply and dangerously wrong.
Yup. Eating delicate greens all the time like on cooking shows would be great, but that’s some bougie shit I can barely dream of. I’m not about to set a print record but I still have a better than average diet, and it tastes good.
Removed by mod
That measures an effect, not an outcome. Is the goal to improve health, or to sell less sugary drinks? All of the evidence we have around using low-calorie sweeteners is that it does not displace the consumption of other dietary sugars, because there is a compensatory effect.
I invite you to point out what part of my advice you consider to be “shitty”, and back up your case with evidence - because I actually know what I’m talking about.
Time to plan, shop for food, and cook. Time is the only thing separating the healthy and unhealthy. It’s a travesty.
Has it improved health or reduced obesity, though? That’s kind of the interesting thing, here. What has happened to overall calorie consumption?
deleted by creator
WATER, motherfuckers, water
Fish fuck in water.
Word. Soda should have sugar, not artificial sweeteners, and if you get too much sugar from soda you’re simply just DRINKING TOO MUCH SODA. Stop it and drink more water.
Great, now all the undernourished kids with poor parents are going to drink water instead and lose weight to dangerously unhealthy levels.
According to The Guardian (same source as this article), the number of children in food poverty in the UK is 4 million. 15% of UK households went hungry in January. Now, soda isn’t the smartest source of calories in a kid’s diet. It’s expensive and low in other nutrients. But kids aren’t always smart. A poor kid thinks “I’m hungry, I have a few pounds, there’s a vending machine, problem solved”. If the soda is too expensive, that doesn’t mean the kid is going to go to Aldi, buy some potatoes, and roast them for a cheap and nutritious meal. They’re a kid! It means they’ll pay more or go without. Which means you’re making the poverty and malnutrition problem worse.
First of all, the tax is 18-24p per litre. No one is denying their children sodas because they can’t afford to pay that.
Secondly, there are a vast number of exceptions. These kids could be getting the sugar you seem to think is necessary for their lives from juice or powdered drinks, which can be just as sugary, if not more so, than sodas. And the latter are usually cheaper.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-your-drink-is-liable-for-the-soft-drinks-industry-levy
Yep, and all our pop now tastes like ass with the vile sweeteners so fewer people drink it.
A lot of people don’t seem to mind it, but to me it really tastes terrible. Even if I got it for free I wouldn’t drink it.
Drink water.
The choice between sugar and aspartame is the choice between diabetes and cancer.
Just give it up. Pop ain’t worth it.
Drink water.
Like animals? I rather have beer.
Fuck this, people should be able to drink soda if they want to. We’re on a dying planet, this just penalizes poor people and takes away their choices. Let people have a moment of pleasure. You can drink soda and drink water.
Telling someone they should give up something that’s bad for them is not stopping them from doing it.
The person you replied to is not stopping anyone from drinking soda and, as long as you have an extra 25p, no one is stopping anyone in Britain from drinking a litre of the most sugary of sodas.
no one is stopping anyone in Britain from drinking a litre of the most sugary of sodas.
The soft drink companies stopped us. With the exception of Coke, after the sugar tax came in, all the manufacturers replaced most of the sugar in their products with sweeteners on the presumption that consumers would not pay more for sugar. So the choice was taken away from us - you can’t buy the sugary versions any more!
You can drink soda and drink water.
No, you can’t. You’re not an open pipe.
They can. They just need to pay a little more. We’re talking 25 pence per liter at most compared to no sugar tax. Higher sugar intake is correlated with obesity which means more health problems which is more expense for the NHS. It’s like a train ticket or gas taxes or taxes in general, some percentage of usage that causes the problem needs to pay for the thing that deals with the consequences or expenses that solve it.
It’s the companies who have decided that they would rather sell shit soda, and consumers who are probably unwilling to pay anything except the cheapest price possible - wealth inequality and poverty problems aside because that’s a different social policy that should not be addressed through a sugar tax.
Well, wealth inequality can’t be set aside until it doesn’t exist. This is a regressive tax.
sponsered by coca-cola™
I’d be happy to tax the coca cola corporation, but targeted sales taxes are regressive … meaning they disportionately impact the poor.
You argue as if water was more expensive than soda.
You’re not understanding the argument.
🥴🙄Aspartame doesn’t cause cancer
Holy shit. Parents should be really embarrassed about this. It wasn’t Timmy buying deadly sugar solution because it was the cheapest thing that’s not water.
That’s the only logical conclusion from the correlation with tax, right?
The other conclusion could also be, that Timmies parents just do not have enough money anymore to spend this on a daily basis on that sugar bombs. Lack of money and lack of education often going hand in hand.
It is heartbreaking to see that some parents should never had become children. If they endanger their kids BC/ they are not able to distinguish between information and advertising on that level. I think we’re doomed as a society for exactly that reason. These are exactly the people voting for brexit, Trump or Nazi scumbags in Europe.
And increased amount of aspartame and asulfate k, that can have an even worse effect on blood sugar than sugar can. Industry still making a killing.
Remind me when they tried to cut CO2 by pushing folk to diesel…
But yeah, only Coca-Cola is really drinkable now as most moved to artificial sweeteners which IMHO taste like chemicals.
There are lots of Americans online who believe that artificial sweeteners are great and technology can fix anything, such as replacing the evil of sugar with something else and keeping the nice consumer product.
Most people don’t even understand blood sugar levels and are afraid of a line going up. It’s pointless to talk to them, they don’t want to change and will reject anything that actually means change.
Don’t know that I agree with your spin that this news is negative in any regard. Also, aspartame is one of the most studied food additives of all time and has been repeatedly proven safe.
Your claim that it “can have an event worse effect on blood sugar than sugar can” has also been proven false. See “Metabolic effects of aspartame in adulthood: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials” by Santos et al from 2017.
Among other conclusions, the study found that “aspartame consumption was not associated with alterations on blood glucose levels compared to control or to sucrose and on insulin levels compared to control or to sucrose.”
My take wasnt that this is bad news. My take is moving from 1 poison to another is not a good thing. There are studies either way, and it’s worth considering where the scientists funding came from. Industry do invest in research for a reason which can result in more studies.
The following summarises some of the risks. While my accuracy wasn’t great, the conclusion that aspartame is safe is highly questionable. If you’re promoting it like it’s a great thing, it’s a very bizarre take to have.
Sugar is rubbish, but doesn’t make artificial sweeteners good. Best things to drink are water, with maybe occasional fruit juice/smoothie. Not artificial rubbish.
Oh and the World Health Organisation considers aspartame a possible carcinogen. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/aspartame-risks
Football season is good and I’ve always preferred grass to astroturf. Industry are always gonna push the “there is no proof” until the deaths/illness become hard to ignore and the profit already made.
Understood and completely agreed with your sentiment. Obviously any time of sweetened drink is going to be less healthy than water. It is also undeniable that our corporate funded research papers have frequently resulted in and continue to result in biased and often completely non-credible conclusions.
I still assert that “safe” is a relative term, and one issue I have is the lack of nuance associated with certain headlines. For example, the IARC Group B classification that the WHO cites is the same risk for cancer as “engine exhaust or occupational exposure as a hairdresser.” So yes, excessive aspartame consumption is definitely objectively bad for you compared to drinking water, but the cancer risk is not extensive compared to many other things we are exposed to on a regular basis.
“JECFA concluded that the data evaluated indicated no sufficient reason to change the previously established acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0–40 mg/kg body weight for aspartame. The committee therefore reaffirmed that it is safe for a person to consume within this limit per day. For example, with a can of diet soft drink containing 200 or 300 mg of aspartame, an adult weighing 70kg would need to consume more than 9–14 cans per day to exceed the acceptable daily intake, assuming no other intake from other food sources.”
Also I very much appreciate the great discussion on this!
Very much so, and apologies if my last sentence was a bit heavy. I’m a bit too used to reddit and the astroturfing that goes on there.
I agree with most of what you said here but do take exception to point about the risk not being extensive compared to other things we are exposed to. I think we should not accept hazardous materials because we are subject to them elsewhere. I’m not a hairdresser, but risks to their health should be eradicated. Harmful particulate should be eradicated, and aspartame too. Let’s take bullets out of the chambers handed to us in this corporate run game of life Russian Roulette.
