• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Nivash

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,463
I think this is the closest a statement of opinion can get to being wrong.

Please explain how this statement makes sense outside of weird Rupi Kaur pseudophilosophy.

For the first, because electric vehicles are gaining market share by the day, globally, at an exponential rate, and have been doing so ever since they started being competitive with petrol powered cars, something that lobbying in the US about removing the tax credit is unlikely to even dent. If for no other reason then because only a small minority are sold in the US.


And with that I'm going to stop commenting on the oil company analagoue because it's distracting from the topic.

For the second because corporations are 1) not evil entities and 2) have nowhere near the power you ascribe to them. My entire point is that they're responding to demands we make in the market rather than conjuring up said demand wholesale. They're selling us the goods we want and will continue to do so for as long as we ask them to.
 

bye

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,419
Phoenix, AZ
We aren't talking about dedicating hours to going to the gym or cooking extravagant meals. You can do stove-top chicken breast in 20 minutes, and you only have to pay attention for like 3 of those 20. throw some veggies in another pan for 5 minutes and you've got a healthy and colorful meal.

If you are working 12 hours and taking care of kids I would actually suggest not worrying about exercise and focus as much energy as you can on fixing your diet first.

hell instapot..... anything, 20 mins max for most things
 
Jun 10, 2018
8,828
This is disputed by a lot of other evidence. We're eating way more, whether or not sugar has greater impacts than calories alone would suggest.
Sugar is metabolized not too differently than alchohol, and directly leads to visceral fat accumulation via de novo lipogenesis. The only difference between sugar and alchohol is that one is at least recognized as a toxin and is consumed despite of it, whereas sugar is pushed as a relatively harmless treat and is copiously consumed by a populace unaware of its long term effects.

Likewise, if you learn that someone is ingesting on average 100 lbs of alchohol on a yearly basis and are suffering from chronic health problems, no one would hesitate to point to the alchohol as the primary factor because of its recognized toxicity. But somehow, if that same person is ingesting 100 lbs of sugar yearly and siffering similar chronic health problems (problems which, by the by, didn't exist in anywhere near the same population frequency prior to 1970) those we can't seem to label sugar just as toxic.
 

fulltimepanda

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,797
For the second because corporations are 1) not evil entities and 2) have nowhere near the power you ascribe to them. My entire point is that they're responding to demands we make in the market rather than conjuring up said demand wholesale. They're selling us the goods we want and will continue to do so for as long as we ask them to.

And the whole argument here is that these companies are manipulating their product to the point it is detrimental to society. At the end of the day they want to make more money and post more profits, they do that by employing science to make their foods more addictive and marketing to make their foods more appealing. They also want to keep their profits high, so they'll try and shift the narrative ( to responsibility), which enables them to keep selling their product and pouring more money into doing the above. Education will be another thing if it isn't already.

What's the average person got against the billions of dollars that has been put into the science, marketing and lobbying? You can say knowledge and responsibility all you want but it all gets thrown away in the face of what people 'like'. At that point is it not an issue?
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Honestly didn't expect "people are obese because that's what the market demands".

Like, okay? Even if this were true, that doesn't mean government is incapable or not responsible for curbing that demand, and that corporate wouldn't fight (or that they don't already fight) against that curbing, or that government isn't the only institution that can tackle the problem systematically from a position of authority, or that governments don't have actual interest in keeping their populace at normal weight ranges.
 
Oct 25, 2017
26,560
Honestly didn't expect "people are obese because that's what the market demands".
Like what planet does buddy live on.

I don't get this thread, we're talking about a systemic widespread issue, and people are giving advice like they're talking to their friend that gained the freshmen 15.

I gained weight personally because I got a car and never felt like cooking and just picked shit up after long days from work and school.

I recognize that now, and actively work toward eating homemade stuff, working out when I can, but that doesn't make it a struggle. Plus I have the privilege of only being responsible for myself, but that sure as shit doesn't mean you can't call out the ton of external factors that lead to obesity which I don't get people refusing to acknowledge.
 

Bio

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,370
Denver, Colorado
For the second because corporations are 1) not evil entities and 2) have nowhere near the power you ascribe to them. My entire point is that they're responding to demands we make in the market rather than conjuring up said demand wholesale. They're selling us the goods we want and will continue to do so for as long as we ask them to.

ZE5FxrV.gif
 

turbobrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,064
Phoenix, AZ
I don't get this thread, we're talking about a systemic widespread issue, and people are giving advice like they're talking to their friend that gained the freshmen 15.

Because what's happening is someone makes a comment that the reason people are gaining weight these days is because of x, and another person responds to them saying you just have to do this or that instead.

I think the real answer is that there's not just one reason for or one solution to this problem. People are bringing up possible causes and solutions and I don't see why they can't all have some effect.
 
Oct 25, 2017
26,560
Because what's happening is someone makes a comment that the reason people are gaining weight these days is because of x, and another person responds to them saying you just have to do this or that instead.

I think the real answer is that there's not just one reason for or one solution to this problem. People are bringing up possible causes and solutions and I don't see why they can't all have some effect.
We can certainly do better than this

Perpetuation of the "thicc" meme is to blame.

Or "so what if you're a mother of three working 12 hours, just cook this in 20 minutes".

Or "it takes the amount of time to cook x than it does to wait in line at McDonald's" the thing people do on their way home.
 

Calamari41

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,097
I don't get this thread, we're talking about a systemic widespread issue, and people are giving advice like they're talking to their friend that gained the freshmen 15.

People are giving advice like that because others are coming into this thread basically saying that they are forced to eat an entire pizza for every meal because they think a head of cauliflower costs $8.

Some are literally just trying to personally help individual posters in this thread who have the wrong idea about home cooked meals.
 
Oct 25, 2017
26,560
People are giving advice like that because others are coming into this thread basically saying that they are forced to eat an entire pizza for every meal because they think a head of cauliflower costs $8.

Some are literally just trying to personally help individual posters in this thread who have the wrong idea about home cooked meals.
With no acknowledgment that someone goes with the pizza because it actually tastes better.

Not to mention, this is EVERY obesity thread on Era so let's not pretend this is a one off.
 

Calamari41

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,097
With no acknowledgment that someone goes with the pizza because it actually tastes better.

Right but these people aren't saying that they don't cook their own healthy meals because they don't like the taste, they're saying they don't do it because they think a head of cauliflower costs more than a super sized Double Quarter Pounder meal. In reality, you can have a meal of two chicken thighs and a couple of helpings of a vegetable like cauliflower for half the price of a McDonald's meal.

Hopefully explaining how much good food actually costs will bring someone down to earth and maybe help them realize why they eat the way they do. Not trying to cure the world by talking to these posters, just trying to help a fellow human.
 
Oct 25, 2017
26,560
Right but these people aren't saying that they don't cook their own healthy meals because they don't like the taste, they're saying they don't do it because they think a head of cauliflower costs more than a super sized Double Quarter Pounder meal. In reality, you can have a meal of two chicken thighs and a couple of helpings of a vegetable like cauliflower for half the price of a McDonald's meal.

Hopefully explaining how much good food actually costs will bring someone down to earth and maybe help them realize why they eat the way they do. Not trying to cure the world by talking to these posters, just trying to help a fellow human.
We're doing a lot of selective reading around the thing I'm actually criticizing.
 

Calamari41

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,097
We're doing a lot of selective reading around the thing I'm actually criticizing.

I'm not trying to selectively read anything. You said people are in this thread giving personal advice, like they're talking to their friend. All I'm saying is that is actually exactly what a lot of us are doing. If I can help one person realize that they can cook good food at home, that's more valuable than a hundred posters saying "they ought to pass a law!"
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
If I can help one person realize that they can cook good food at home, that's more valuable than a hundred posters saying "they ought to pass a law!"
I get what you mean but consider another scenario. Maybe someday a politician introduces legislation to address some facet of the obesity problem, let's say, a tax on certain foodstuffs or subsidies on others. Then the problem becomes "do we vote yes for it or do we vote no for it?"

And on the "no" side comes the familiar refrain about "personal responsibility" and "consumer choices" coupled with "it'll make your taxes go up".

The posts of "they ought to pass a law" are, on some level, getting you ready to vote yes when that day comes. Because when it comes to doing things so society is healthier overall, it is very easy for an electorate to get lost in the "I shouldn't have to pay for other people's mistakes" mindset.
 

Calamari41

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,097
I get what you mean but consider another scenario. Maybe someday a politician introduces legislation to address some facet of the obesity problem, let's say, a tax on certain foodstuffs or subsidies on others. Then the problem becomes "do we vote yes for it or do we vote no for it?"

And on the "no" side comes the familiar refrain about "personal responsibility" and "consumer choices" coupled with "it'll make your taxes go up".

The posts of "they ought to pass a law" are, on some level, getting you ready to vote yes when that day comes. Because when it comes to doing things so society is healthier overall, it is very easy for an electorate to get lost in the "I shouldn't have to pay for other people's mistakes" mindset.

Definitely, there's value in the discussion about the government needing to act, but it is at the same time kind of ridiculous to look down on people who are attempting to reach out to individuals with the wrong impressions about healthy eating. That's all I'm trying to say.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Definitely, there's value in the discussion about the government needing to act, but it is at the same time kind of ridiculous to look down on people who are attempting to reach out to individuals with the wrong impressions about healthy eating. That's all I'm trying to say.
Yeah I agree, there shouldn't be as much condescension as there is from either side in this conversation. The problem is much bigger than personal responsibility but a little mano-a-mano advice doesn't necessarily hurt.
 

bangai-o

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,527
The comment is not really wrong. There are, of course, influencers in a market. However, the market will still respond to demands. Oil is in high demand because we like to live comfortably. Unhealthy foods are in demand because we like that sweet and greasy shit. So, the market responds. If people become more willing to make changes in their lives, such as not running an air conditioner all day, riding a bike to work, doing healthy food prep, then new markets can open up in response.
 

tadaima

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,843
Tokyo, Japan
I'm finally at the point in my life where I have relatively full control of my diet habits (32yo). It now feels as if I have levers I can pull to gain and lose weight in a controlled fashion. It was very hard and required a lot of dedication to get to this point, and a lot of personal education.

That said, any time I have truly garbage food (I.e. McDonald's, Taco Bell) it just makes me hungry and want to binge.

It's crazy the effects these things have on us. I can eat a skinless rotisserie chicken breast and some roasted carrots (my lunch most days) with a side of watermelon and I'll be satisfied. Give me a quarter pounder, 6 piece nuggets, and a small fries, and I'm hungry in an hour.
Good job. Thanks for sharing, this is reassuring.

I recently cut carbs almost completely (vegetables aside). It was hellish for upwards of a week. The cravings were so overpowering and my body was so physically weak, with regular cold sweats. But after one week, my body had completely adjusted. I'm over three weeks in and haven't yet cheated, feeling better than ever. Waking up earlier in the mornings and feeling tired when I should. Better sleeping patterns than ever.
 

Bio

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,370
Denver, Colorado
The comment is not really wrong. There are, of course, influencers in a market. However, the market will still respond to demands. Oil is in high demand because we like to live comfortably. Unhealthy foods are in demand because we like that sweet and greasy shit. So, the market responds. If people become more willing to make changes in their lives, such as not running an air conditioner all day, riding a bike to work, doing healthy food prep, then new markets can open up in response.

GxvubWM.gif


Unhealthy foods are "in demand" because processed junk food is far cheaper than eating healthy, and we live in a country where most people live paycheck to paycheck. The idea that massive international corporations will respond to personal changes in lifestyle, or that these corporations aren't doing they're goddamn best to dictate your tastes, preferences and options, is laughably naive.

McD's doesn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year on advertising because it doesn't work, and they don't use cheap, shitty ingredients because it's what you demand. They do it because it's addictive, because it benefits their bottom line, and because they know they can manipulate you without you even realizing it (even when you think you do), because they spend assloads of money determining exactly how to do that.

If you seriously think corporations are benevolent entities that are simply responding to market demands, you flat out don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
 

water_wendi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,354
.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6234835/

final paragraph from Conclusion said:
Finally, there is strong evidence of the existence of sugar addiction, both at preclinical and clinical level. Our model has demonstrated that five out of eleven criteria for SUD are met, specifically: use of larger amounts and for longer than intended, craving, hazardous use, tolerance, and withdrawal. From an evolutionary perspective, we must consider addiction as a normal trait that permitted humans to survive primitive conditions when food was scarce. As we evolved culturally, the neural circuits involved in addictive behaviors became dysfunctional and instead of helping us survive they are in fact compromising our health. From a revolutionary perspective, understanding the molecular, and neurological/psychological intricacies of addiction (sugar, drugs of abuse) will permit the discovery of new therapies (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) and possible management of at least one crucial factor in the occurrence of obesity.

Sugar is a problem and we will continue to have a worsening situation as long as its abundantly everywhere.
 

Pwnz

Member
Oct 28, 2017
14,279
Places
We are fucked arent we?

Without any regulations yes absolutely. Chips will be laced with cannabinoids that increase appetite. But bootstraps, I have white privilege and grew up with natural foods and sustained that tradition. Let lays profit off the ill health of children because fuck you that's why. Endeevisible reeeesponsibility.
 

bye

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,419
Phoenix, AZ
With no acknowledgment that someone goes with the pizza because it actually tastes better.

Not to mention, this is EVERY obesity thread on Era so let's not pretend this is a one off.


none of your explanations make sense, even though I can see how people fall into a similar trap of thinking

you can meal prep nutritious, TASTY meals in 30 mins, with up to 6-10 servings. thats like 3 mins of prep per meal. so in all actuality, it is faster than going out if you cook for more than one day.

its also much cheaper and healthier for the same calorie meal you would have going out.

the only barrier is effort. it takes very little skills these days with things like the instapot, just chop some things up, open a can or carton, toss it all in and you have a meal in 15 mins.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
the only barrier is effort. it takes very little skills these days with things like the instapot, just chop some things up, open a can or carton, toss it all in and you have a meal in 15 mins.
Availability is a "soft" barrier. Some people just don't have access to a wide variety of food and while they can instapot with stuff they have, if they don't like the results they'll go back to flash frozen beef patties trucked to their local McD.

There should be some kind of product where your local grocers prepares stews or whatever bagged and ready to dump into an instapot, and it needs to be competitive with fast food in terms of price/calorie. I think there's potential there. Microwave/toaster oven dinners are way too "unhealthy" but the concept is the same. We need to remove as many barriers as possible between a person and a fulfilling, healthy meal.
 

BaasRed

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
962
UAE
Sugar is way too addictive imo and needs to be regulated in some manner since these food companies decided to play so dirty. Changing your diet will be difficult but I found it very rewarding so even if change won't happen on a government level at least there's an option on a personal level.
 

MrH

Banned
Nov 3, 2017
3,995
Shit I can press a button and have a 2000 calorie pizza at my door in 30 minutes, that's part of my problem at least for me.
 
Oct 25, 2017
26,560
none of your explanations make sense, even though I can see how people fall into a similar trap of thinking

you can meal prep nutritious, TASTY meals in 30 mins, with up to 6-10 servings. thats like 3 mins of prep per meal. so in all actuality, it is faster than going out if you cook for more than one day.

its also much cheaper and healthier for the same calorie meal you would have going out.

the only barrier is effort. it takes very little skills these days with things like the instapot, just chop some things up, open a can or carton, toss it all in and you have a meal in 15 mins.
You're responding to something I'm not even talking about no wonder my "explanations don't make sense".
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Shit I can press a button and have a 2000 calorie pizza at my door in 30 minutes, that's part of my problem at least for me.
It reminds me of the piracy/netflix problem. Yes, there's an element of consumer choice. Some people actually want to eat healthier. But when junk food is so convenient it's hard to justify the extra effort moment-to-moment. Similarly, film piracy went down when there was a legit, "painless" way of downloading movies a la Netflix. Consumers will change their behavior when you modify the roadblocks between them and their desired behavior and this is where government has the most power.

Government needs to make it "easier" to choose a healthy option or "harder" to choose an unhealthy one.
 

BumbaT BrowN

Member
Oct 27, 2017
589
Every year I go backpacking out in California/Washington/Oregon, usually for around 2 weeks at a time. I set out with all my gear and about 5-6 days worth of food at a time, and plan my resupply points ahead of time. I do about 15-20 miles a day, at elevation, with 25+ pounds of gear, water, and food on my back.

The food that I pack is not healthy, and it's really kind of impossible to pack healthy foods. You can't really pack fruits or vegetables out there, nor would you want to. You need to calories and energy. As a result, the foods that I consume are pretty much pure junk. CLIF bars, candy bars, Pop Tarts, dehydrated rice dinners, candied almonds and nuts, etc. Really just processed junk. But, it's got a lot of calories and doesn't spoil, so it's pretty much all you can pack when you go out there for days on end. I usually pack around 3,000 calories worth of food per day, and I definitely need it. There are times where even after eating all my food, I still get into my sleeping bag at night and am hungry.

Here's the thing though - after my trips, I always lose weight. And not just one or two pounds. I'm talking 7-10 pounds over the ~2.5 weeks that I am out there. Despite eating 3,000 calories worth of pure junk per day, I'm still losing insane amounts of weight.

Over the years, I've had other friends and family join me on these expeditions. My dad, brother, friends, and cousins have all come with me at one point or another. And despite our differing BMIs and weights, the same thing happens to every single person - they all lose significant amounts of weight. Despite the fact that we're all eating thousands of calories worth of junk per day, everyone drops a ton of pounds. Because we're burning significantly more than we're bringing in each day.

And it all comes back to what we've heard time and time again - calories in, calories out. It's that simple. Obviously, going out and hiking in the mountains all day for 2.5 weeks isn't something someone can just randomly go out and do if they want to lose weight. But it does reinforce the importance of calorie management. Eating clean, healthy foods while cutting calories and exercise is the key to all of this.

The first line of treatment for chronic diseases like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, etc, isn't medication or surgery. It's lifestyle changes. Almost half of all newly diagnosed type 2 diabetics can be managed with lifestyle modifications alone.

So many people just don't care though. They really don't. Fast foods, red meat, soda, alcohol, candy, fried stuff, sugar, etc. And no exercise. People don't want to change until they develop a chronic disease as a result of their habits, but sometimes not even that is enough. It's unfortunate but it's the current reality.

So what you are saying is true however there are psychological factors that you are not taking into consideration in how mass media social media and all types of advertising really affact the choices that people make and are able to make once the spiral sets in. Also are you gaining this weight back after the hikes or do you keep it off? How much of the weightloss did you attribite to water as to actual adipose or muscle tissue?
 
Last edited:

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
I'm sorry but this is pathetic. There is so much information and so ways to maintain a healthy lifestyle that no one should have to rely on the government to protect them from unhealthy food.

This is exactly the kind of perspective that allows systemic abuse. So long as you buy into personal willpower as the sole reasonable deterrent, you're advocating bringing a sword to a gunfight. If your counterpoint is to say that the post you were responding to abdicated personal responsibility to government regulations, I'd ask you: Whivh one has shown to have a greater effectiveness in curbing unhealthy practices?

It also bares mentioning that you yourself rely on the government to protect you from unhealthy food.
 
Last edited:
Mar 29, 2018
7,078
How is it incorrect?
Well for "plenty" of people it does work, but the implication of your post was "anyone can do it" which is untrue.

Recent research has found that your genes pretty much dictate not only how your body stores fat but also how your brain FEELS and thinks about food. It's something we practically can't control.

More specifically, the research has found that the vast majority of overweight/obese people have at least 3 of these 5 or 6 specific genes activated. One controls your appetite perception (e.g. if it's activated, even if you have enough energy, you'll feel like you NEED to eat more). One controls how you metabolise the energy (two siblings can eat the same amount in a week but one will have this gene active and the other won't - the one with it active will put on a ton of weight, the other won't, despite eating LITERALLY the same diet). Etc.

The ultimate realisation is that there's no such thing as objectivity with food. You feel like you have subjective control over what you want to eat and what you decide to eat, but really you are totally at the whim of your genes, which dictate your mood, appetite, inclination, etc, etc.

Basically the narrative that people can just "make better choices" is reductive or flat out incorrect for a massive segment of the population. That thought process "hmm I think I'll have a burger" seems like a conscious choice, but it's actually not. It's borderline automatic.

Then you've got the actual topic at hand - the article in the OP - which is about how liberal economics are basically driving an unprecedented level of manipulation to ensure people buy more food products, which they definitely don't need, just to exacerbate the whole thing...

Yeah you've got a recipe for disaster!
 
Last edited:

LL_Decitrig

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,334
Sunderland
the only barrier is effort.

Because nothing solves an epidemic better than blaming the billions of victims, right? Oh wait. No, we've tried that for forty years and now the problem is much bigger than when we started. Diseases of obesity are consuming more healthcare resources and eating into more GDP that could be used for improving the standard of life generally. But let's go on pretending this massive problem can be solved if only everybody on the planet would make a little more effort as individuals.
 

bye

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,419
Phoenix, AZ
Because nothing solves an epidemic better than blaming the billions of victims, right? Oh wait. No, we've tried that for forty years and now the problem is much bigger than when we started. Diseases of obesity are consuming more healthcare resources and eating into more GDP that could be used for improving the standard of life generally. But let's go on pretending this massive problem can be solved if only everybody on the planet would make a little more effort as individuals.

im not saying its entirely the individuals fault, I was just finding fault in the argument that there isn't time/money/resources to eat healthier; its not something just completely out of reach like some believe in here.

of course the government should be taking action in regards to sugar, but unfortunately no one actually wants a sugar-tax or ban of any sort. it would be very unpopular.

the fix for this issue isn't just legislation, but rather a slew of things, education reform being at the top of the list probably.
 
Last edited:
Feb 10, 2018
17,534
So it is eating to much....
I believe its more of an emotional thing which causes people to eat to much.
I've never had this problem and I eat chocolate biscuits, ice creams, cheese, bread, meat everyday.
 

LL_Decitrig

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,334
Sunderland

Ragnar

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,354
For the second because corporations are 1) not evil entities and 2) have nowhere near the power you ascribe to them. My entire point is that they're responding to demands we make in the market rather than conjuring up said demand wholesale. They're selling us the goods we want and will continue to do so for as long as we ask them to.
The comment is not really wrong. There are, of course, influencers in a market. However, the market will still respond to demands. Oil is in high demand because we like to live comfortably. Unhealthy foods are in demand because we like that sweet and greasy shit. So, the market responds. If people become more willing to make changes in their lives, such as not running an air conditioner all day, riding a bike to work, doing healthy food prep, then new markets can open up in response.
The market responds to what we as consumers want. That part is true.
What's also true is that the market can affect what we want, by advertising and other, more malicious forms of manipulation.
So pointing to what we as consumers want as the deciding factor is fine, but you also have to think about why we want these things. And that's what companies knowingly manipulate.

Two examples of many:

Tobacco industry. We wanted cigarettes. We didn't know about the health risks. They supressed and smeared research showing that cigarettes cause serious health effects because they feared that if the consumers had known of the link, fewer people would start smoking. Even though they knew it was hurting their consumers.

Diamond industry. They wanted to sell more diamonds. We as consumers, by and large, did not want them. Prices were quite low and sales were spotty. So an advertising campaign was cooked up where a diamond ring was made out to be the ultimate symbol of love for one's wife-to-be. Sales for De Beers increased 100-fold in 40 years. They created a want which wasn't there before.
 

Psychotext

Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,690
In my country and some others we already have a tax on drinks containing sugar. It's not as unworkable or unpopular as you might think. The UK sugar tax came into effect in Spring of last year.

It'll be interesting to see some studies on the effect that may or may not have had, long term.

Especially if they take into account how much total sugar is consumed given the reformulation of some products.
 

Zubalon

Banned
Dec 11, 2017
663
This mostly effects the poor .. I have a Ghetto Walmart in Schenectady NY that every piece of "food" has sugar in it , there isnt one healthy item not one.
 

LL_Decitrig

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,334
Sunderland
It'll be interesting to see some studies on the effect that may or may not have had, long term.

Especially if they take into account how much total sugar is consumed given the reformulation of some products.

It's encouraging that the industry is responding in that way. The tax structure is imperfect, though, as it exempts fruit juices which are just as unhealthy as pop.
 

Tzarscream

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
2,945
For the second because corporations are 1) not evil entities and 2) have nowhere near the power you ascribe to them. My entire point is that they're responding to demands we make in the market rather than conjuring up said demand wholesale. They're selling us the goods we want and will continue to do so for as long as we ask them to.
thatcher_reagan.jpg
 

Stalker

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
6,726
User Banned (2 Weeks): Dismissive Commentary, Fatshaming; Long History of Trolling and Other Infractions
Get some will power
 
Feb 10, 2018
17,534
No. Please read the article. Calories intake has not increased in the UK, in fact it's reduced at the same time obesity has rocketed.
"to trick us into eating more than we need"

You should read the article, it says it right there.
Food choices, hormone levels, and activity levels also play a role but so does overall calories.

But yes, it would make more sense for me to have said " so we are eating a calorie surplus"

In 1976 the average calorie intake 2590 calories a day, today the article states a study which says we eat 2130 calls a day.
But the modern person could still be eating to much compared to the 70s person because the 70s person could be burning more calories.
 
Last edited:

LL_Decitrig

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,334
Sunderland
Where are they getting the 2130 kcal avg per person number from? I find that incredibly hard to believe, thus finding the "people in the Uk are eating less calories now than before" statement suspicious.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-43112790

This article in 2018 states.

Read the whole article you just cited. Underreporting is a systemic problem of this kind of survey, but the ONS data set is the best estimate we have. If you find incredible the notion that we're consuming fewer calories while simultaneously consuming more of those calories as sugar, you'll have to explain yourself a bit better than you have. We know that British consumption of sugary yogurts and dairy desserts has increased, and that people are drinking much more pop. It's not the number of calories, it's the amount of sugar.
 

Amnixia

▲ Legend ▲
The Fallen
Jan 25, 2018
10,411
We should just ban processed sugars, or even overly processed foods altogether.

Won't happen because $$$$$.