while i don’t doubt a third of americans over 40 are on statins, if a fifth of those were having serious injuries, it would be an undeniable phenomenon. i have only ever heard of people saying a certain formulation worked better than another at controlling their cholesterol.
anyway, sugar is pretty fucked up and the lobby has successfully derailed the most common sense nutrition labeling info in the states. next time you look at a nutrition label in the US, notice which component in the “amount per serving” lacks a “Percent of Daily Value”. even though salt, with much lobbying effort, managed to get it’s % of DV based on an “Tolerable Upper Intake Level” as opposed to the actual “Recommended Daily Allowance” which is what other components are labeled as, good old sugar is straight up blank. one would imagine there must be a generally recommended intake amount for sugar. couldn’t they just do the simple calculation for us like they do with everything else? i mean, didn’t the WHO in 2002 say something about excessive sugar intake being a massive problem and recommend doing exactly this?erroneous!
The sugar industry in the US is threatening to bring the World Health Organisation to its knees by demanding that Congress end its funding unless the WHO scraps guidelines on healthy eating, due to be published on Wednesday.
The threat is being described by WHO insiders as tantamount to blackmail and worse than any pressure exerted by the tobacco lobby.
anyway, i legit never noticed it or learned about any of this until i was in a human nutrition class and we did a unit on labeling, dietary recommendations, and the regulatory environment. in retrospect, this material seems like the kind of thing that should be taught in elementary school, but a comprehensive understanding being present in younger people developing food habits would probably be devastating for capital. especially in the wake of them pulling so many strings to stay out of the spotlight here. the real legacy of the tobacco lobbying efforts is how the strategy of corruption was refined to perfection and made available as a playbook to other formations (fossil fuel, industrial foods, etc).
anyway, after 4 decades of eating typical, common food in the US, most everybody’s endocrine system is sputtering because the pancreas has been getting mule kicked 3 times a day times 15,000 days trying to moderate these incredible spikes. the body is also far less capable of covering over horrible habits anymore, the keyfob for the Lambo has been disabled, please enjoy your life in this somewhat tempermental 1993 Toyota Previa that you take into the mechanic every 3-6 months for routine diagnostics and must-have inputs that you can only buy from them. this sudden dependence makes people very upset and scrambling for a way out for those halcyon days when they could enjoy things they liked and didn’t have to take some assortment of pills to not die horribly.
Does a recommended sugar intake make sense? The source of sugar is going to make a big difference in digestion and metabolism, even the difference between eating a whole fruit and juicing that same fruit even though the sugar amount and type is identical. Metrics based dieting can easily mislead.
while i don’t doubt a third of americans over 40 are on statins, if a fifth of those were having serious injuries, it would be an undeniable phenomenon. i have only ever heard of people saying a certain formulation worked better than another at controlling their cholesterol.
anyway, sugar is pretty fucked up and the lobby has successfully derailed the most common sense nutrition labeling info in the states. next time you look at a nutrition label in the US, notice which component in the “amount per serving” lacks a “Percent of Daily Value”. even though salt, with much lobbying effort, managed to get it’s % of DV based on an “Tolerable Upper Intake Level” as opposed to the actual “Recommended Daily Allowance” which is what other components are labeled as, good old sugar is straight up blank. one would imagine there must be a generally recommended intake amount for sugar. couldn’t they just do the simple calculation for us like they do with everything else? i mean, didn’t the WHO in 2002 say something about excessive sugar intake being a massive problem and recommend doing exactly this? erroneous!
anyway, i legit never noticed it or learned about any of this until i was in a human nutrition class and we did a unit on labeling, dietary recommendations, and the regulatory environment. in retrospect, this material seems like the kind of thing that should be taught in elementary school, but a comprehensive understanding being present in younger people developing food habits would probably be devastating for capital. especially in the wake of them pulling so many strings to stay out of the spotlight here. the real legacy of the tobacco lobbying efforts is how the strategy of corruption was refined to perfection and made available as a playbook to other formations (fossil fuel, industrial foods, etc).
anyway, after 4 decades of eating typical, common food in the US, most everybody’s endocrine system is sputtering because the pancreas has been getting mule kicked 3 times a day times 15,000 days trying to moderate these incredible spikes. the body is also far less capable of covering over horrible habits anymore, the keyfob for the Lambo has been disabled, please enjoy your life in this somewhat tempermental 1993 Toyota Previa that you take into the mechanic every 3-6 months for routine diagnostics and must-have inputs that you can only buy from them. this sudden dependence makes people very upset and scrambling for a way out for those halcyon days when they could enjoy things they liked and didn’t have to take some assortment of pills to not die horribly.
Does a recommended sugar intake make sense? The source of sugar is going to make a big difference in digestion and metabolism, even the difference between eating a whole fruit and juicing that same fruit even though the sugar amount and type is identical. Metrics based dieting can easily mislead.