this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
448 points (97.7% liked)

World News

52630 readers
2489 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hector@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That is true, the sugar (and corn,) industry at a minimum has run influence operations demonizing fat for the harms of sugar.

The body actually does not feel full until it gets enough fat, the stomach tastes the contents, if you have no fat you take in way more calories. Also, sugar is half fructose and half glucose. Glucose is good, used as is, that is what they put in hospital IV drips. Fructose gets metabolized in your liver into fat, then used, but the body does not recognize it as a food. It does not contribute to a full feeling.

Every time these dumb motherfuckers get thirsty they swill down pop, with the equivalent of 16 teaspoons of sugar in a 16 ounce. It is a major, if not the largest, factor in obesity.

Fructose could not even be utilized in human ancestors in the monkey days, it was not until a cold wind blew over africa for centuries that our monkey ancestors got the ability to turn that fructose into fat, to use for the periods when we did not have fresh fruit on hand every day all day. According to a national geographic article titled Sugar, now not findable on enshitified search engines because fuck you, (and me, the consumer not a personal dig.)

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Are you sure about that last bit with the monkeys? Most fruits contain fructose, it'd be weird if money body just discarded a perfectly good source of backup energy.

Also your liver can metabolise fructose straight into glucose too if needed. Obviously not as fast as eating glucose, but if you were a monke, it might be pretty useful. In today's sedentary society it's of course more harmful, but I don't think fructose itself is inherently bad. We just live lifestyles and have diets where it has little to no place.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 1 points 6 days ago

I am sure I read it in a national geographic article titled sugar over ten years ago. I have been made aware the liver processing into fat and body breaking it down is more complicated than that, that is interesting it can make it straight into glucose.

Before the cold snap, the monkeys were in tropics, fruit is constantly on the trees, tropical forests are completely different than temperate ones too, there is incredible diversity in trees down there, up here it's the same few trees, they might not have 2 of the same trees on an acre. They flower differently, figs in the tropics for instance, they bear fruit year round, constant. So there was no need to use the fructose, I would be interested to learn more about it though, as other animals can use it and when and how they were able to as we know. There was no shortage of fruit in those tropical forests, limits on populations were likely more from disease and predation than food shortages.

But national geographic is a reliable source, or was, back then. Haven't seen them in a while, not really since news corporation bought them, I know they sold them off later but that's when I quit them.