96 sats \ 14 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 7 Mar \ on: US Sugar Consumption, 1822—2005 charts
Added sugar is incredibly addictive and detrimental to our health, making it comparable to some of the worst drugs out there.
When I first heard a guy talk about how rare sweets are in nature it finally clicked for me why sugar is so addictive. For thousands of years humans rarely had the amount of sugar they had even in the beginning of that chart.
Think about it. They would have seasonal access in some areas to fruit and berries but in many regions of the world they didn't have access to much at all. They might have had honey, but this would not be a staple. So they would have to eat meat and forage for whatever they could find.
Now we have sugar in everything. No wonder it is so hard to say no to. Ancient man would of course eat all the sugar he could for the energy. Its basically a drug to humans. In small douses maybe harmless but in vast quantities it creates problems like most things do.
reply
The industrial revolution improved productivity and made sugar more affordable to the masses. Prior to that, only the aristocracy could afford it. It is said that King Louis XIV of France had rotten teeth, and bad mouth breath because of his overindulgence of sugar.
Later on, the discovery of HFCS (screenshot) and government subsidies made it even more affordable...
reply
💯
reply
I'll be shocked if it doesn't turn out to have had a greater social cost than tobacco and I suspect it's at least on par with alcohol.
reply
From what I've read over the years, it is a worldwide problem with very serious effects on people's health. It is a silent drug because it doesn't hurt you but it affects your body a lot. The sugar that doesn't harm you is synthesized from food by our body and that's enough for us. Some people even say it's an epidemic...
reply
I believe it would be considered "endemic", because it's already deeply rooted everywhere, rather than spreading.
I'm glad there's growing awareness of how harmful it is. Do you know if that recent downturn has continued or if consumption has started rising again?
reply
You're absolutely right, I got the word wrong. "Endemic" is the correct term here. I think we're just seeing a small correction in consumption before the upward trend resumes. It's true that people are more aware of the danger now, but I also think it's a danger that people can easily forget.
reply
It's definitely my biggest consumption problem. I do pretty well with sugar intake (I think), but I'm far more prone to eating sugary "foods" than I am towards any other vice.
reply
If I'm not mistaken, sugar and alcohol are metabolically equivalent (and maybe chemically too)
reply
If you mean in terms of calories per gram, I believe alcohol is actual slightly greater than sugar.
reply
You're probably right, but I meant to say that the body metabolises sugar and alcohol in the same manner. I vaguely remember having heard this somewhere before... if true, they might have similar effects in terms of health etc.
reply
I don't know whether that's right or not, for sure, but people on ketogenic diets substitute sugar alcohols for sugar. That makes me think they're metabolized differently.
Are you thinking of protein, by any chance? Because, I do recall that excess protein ends up being metabolized like sugar.
reply
OK, I've found my source. In this quite old interview with philosopher Stefan Molyneux, Pr. Lustig argued that fructose acts very similarly to ethanol at the metabolic and cellular level, contributing to issues like fatty liver, triglyceride production, and even addictive properties...
It's a great and relatively short episode in which they both discuss Pr. Lustig's article, "The Fructose Epidemic"
Also, it's important to note that we're talking about fructose, which is present in the food etc, and not glucose. Both are metabolised differently by the body.
reply
Interesting. I wonder if it's because ethanol is derived from fructose initially, so the body basically converts it back first.
reply