507
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.
Has it improved health or reduced obesity, though? That's kind of the interesting thing, here. What has happened to overall calorie consumption?
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.
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.
Time to plan, shop for food, and cook. Time is the only thing separating the healthy and unhealthy. It's a travesty.
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.
Shits on pseudoscientific dietary advice
Provides shitty dietary advice
What on Earth are you even blabbering about? The headline says the measure helped kids drink less soda. It fucking worked.
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.
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.
Sure I can - find actual average weight, in lbs. of americans in the 1970s and compare them to today. It’s actually pretty easy to change my mind.
The problem is that you can’t find that evidence, because it doesn’t exist, because the studies we have show that average weight hasn’t changed very much.
You’re the person here who is zealously refusing to change their position based on facts, not me - my views are shaped on years of research and review of the scientific literature. Your views are based on your lifetime of being exposed to a media narrative based on pseudoscience. designed to push an ideological goal.
Taller people are heavier. If you're not adjusting for that your data will be funny. Guess what, if you adjust for that using the square of height you've invented raw BMI. The categories are probably arbitrary, but you don't need them, and a different exponent will generally show the same trajectory if by different magnitudes.
Although come to think of it, the population got taller, so the trend would be even stronger if we weren't factoring that out.
I'm willing to change my mind too, and I do indeed have a lifetime of exposure to media and experts behind this, although I don't believe in conspiracy theories which seems to be what you're suggesting by a certain ideology being pushed.
Here's the first paper that comes up, using BMI, about the exact breakdown of how it increased: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30054-X/fulltext
That’s a fun paper, because they basically find no actual negative health effect, then just ignore that fact and continue as if they did.
First, the global focus on the obesity epidemic has largely overshadowed the persistence of underweight in some countries. Our results show the need to address the remaining underweight problem
Second, although adiposity has been consistently shown to be an independent risk factor for several NCDs in individual-level epidemiological studies, at the population level, the effect of rising BMI on the course of mortality reduction has so far been somewhat small in high-income countries
All the study shows is that as people get richer they can overcome being underweight, which is an incredibly good thing - it reduces health risks significantly. Then it goes back to the usual moral panic shit about how that’s actually a bad thing.
Essentially everything you ever heard about weight and fat is ideological, not scientific, in basis. Research consistently finds results that aren’t statistically significant, then just blathers about how that statistically significant result would exist if they could account for x y z. There’s no scientific basis to the claim.
The basics of it are that extremes on either end, of being underweight or very overweight, are health risks. The health risk of being “overweight” are massively overstated, because people like to judge and bully fat people.
I mean, there's also
Second, although adiposity has been consistently shown to be an independent risk factor for several NCDs in individual-level epidemiological studies
in the same exact excerpt.
Yes, being poor and starving still sucks. Nobody cares because it happens outside of the magic Western bubble, but that's another issue for another thread.
I think I've proven my point here, so I'll just duck out.
Yeah, because the individual-level studies aren’t worth shit, that’s the point. They’re like the scientific level of analogies. You get these studies that are on like, 15 people or whatever that make some statistically significant finding, then it later turns out that they either very selectively chose their test subjects, the methodology was a complete joke, they p-hacked the findings into worthlessness or all of the above. If the individual level studies scaled up, if they were actually finding something real, they would be reflected in population-level studies. The fact that they aren’t pretty clearly demonstrates that there isn’t a strong correlation.
Low weight is a significant health issue in wealthy countries too. It’s a massive contributor to mortality rates, as much as high adiposity is. But it’s not discussed because it’s less popular to bully people for being skinny as it is to bully people for being fat.
But sure, I’m the one who refuses to change his mind when challenged.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
🥴🙄Aspartame doesn't cause cancer
Drink water.
Like animals? I rather have beer.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
507 points (98.7% liked)
World News
38147 readers
2302 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS