1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hungry? Put down the f***ing Snickers! You'll die!

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Batman, Feb 5, 2012.

  1. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    This has been making the news rounds this weekend. Kind of surprised it hasn't been mentioned here yet.
    A group of researchers published a paper in the journal "Nature" last week saying sugar is toxic to the body. Not only that, but they suggested that it should be regulated as strictly as alcohol and cigarettes, with age limits for purchase.
    Sounds utterly preposterous, but there's enough members of the "obesity is an epidemic!" crowd out there that I'm afraid it'll gain some traction.

    http://news.yahoo.com/sugar-regulated-toxin-researchers-180605186.html
     
  2. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    obesity is an epidemic but regulating sugar is asinine
     
  3. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Sugar cane is the new cocaine
     
  4. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I don't think this sounds all that preposterous to a lot of people in the medical community. Regulating it is probably impossible, but I have a feeling we're going to learn as much about sugar in this half-century as we learned about tobacco in the previous half-century.
     
  5. Beef03

    Beef03 Active Member

    Big thing I'm learning the older I get, and granted I'm not all that old, just about everything will kill you. The key is moderation and exercise. If you sit on your butt all day, it doesn't matter how healthy you eat, you will still wind up unhealthy. Every day there are competing studies released that say this will kill, then next week they say, no it's actually good for you and this will kill you. laying out our health section a couple of times a week, is ridiculous because it contradicts itself constantly. I remember when I was in college there was a story linking Tim Hortons coffee and doughnuts to cancer. At this point my diet is protein heavy with lots of veg and very few carbs. I do stay away from sugar as best I can, so regulating it for me would not be a huge deal, but I already do that on a personal basis. I also believe the artificial sweetners are just about as bad for you, especially when they are listed as a healthy alternative. Key is education and I believe reexamining the food period that we are all taught - at least in Canada - growing up.
     
  6. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    I think sugar is a major culprit, but I think the bigger issue is the preponderance of overprocessed crap. Be it frozen dinners, Doritos, cheap processed lunch meat, whatever, I think the evidence is mounting up in indisputable amounts that that stuff is basically poison. At the very least, it's the food equivalent of packing an iPod with a pound of styrofoam peanuts -- what little of value is there is padded out by hundreds of extra useless calories.

    And it's damned difficult to get rid of, because it is in fact so cheap. I know people like to say that real food can be just as cheap, but in the limited steps I've taken so far, that's not really proven to be the case.

    Trouble is, I'm not sure a lot of what you can get at a major grocery store as far as "fresh" food is concerned is all that much better, especially when it comes to things like packaged meat. I feel better that I'm cooking my own chicken instead of eating it out of a tray, but I'm not sure it's the ideal solution either. And I'll be damned if I'm becoming a vegetarian.
     
  7. Smasher_Sloan

    Smasher_Sloan Active Member

    What you're going to learn is that too much of it is bad for you, especially when combined with a sedentary lifestyle.

    Sugar has been around for a long time. On the other hand, cars, elevators, desk jobs, television and video games are all comparatively new.

    People used to move more, and they worked at jobs that required more physical effort. Your great grandparents didn't have health clubs to join because they got enough of a workout from everyday life.
     
  8. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    Our great grandparents also didn't have high-fructose corn syrup, and what sugar they did have wasn't processed to within an inch of its life. Both play a role, but the role of the Archer Daniels Midlands of the world is substantial.
     
  9. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    It must be said that life expectancy in the U.S. has never been higher. Standards for making sure food is prepared in a non-lethal, non-gross way exist that didn't exist for our grandparents. There is food labeling so we can judge foods on their relative nutritional merit. Dissemination of information about how to eat better has never been more available; our grandparents didn't have the Net. Our food choices are wider than ever and economies of scale are awesome. One small example of that: a small soda at a fast-food restaurant is the same size that a large soda was a couple decades ago. And gourmet-type food that would have been out of the budget of a family to prepare too often can now be had microwave style for a couple bucks.

    Of course, one can say wide choices of relatively cheap, convenient, good food make it more likely for people to overindulge, as it's easier to. Of course, marketing has created demand for foods that has lower nutritional merit. But still, the ability to eat well is there, and the ball is in our court to make decisions daily not to eat too much, not to eat junk, and to exercise moderately.
     
  10. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    Improvements in life expectancy are largely, although not wholly, attributable to far fewer people dying in (a) childhood, (b) childbirth and (c) wars.

    And we can't say "well, people have to make their own choices" and then have people screaming about the meddling, know-it-all government every time someone suggests putting the donuts down and eating a piece of fruit. Uninformed people can't magically make informed choices, and things that are obvious to many of us simply aren't to many others.

    (I'm turning into a goddamn crunchy granola hippie the older I get.)
     
  11. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    I don't buy the wars one. Much as with food production, killing is a lot more efficient, and we should take into account the numerous "wars" countries wage on their own citizens.

    The point is, I doubt we would all magically live to 100 if only we would get rid of processed food. I have no doubt food is safer than it's ever been. And cigarettes are a red herring. We absolutely don't need cigarettes. We absolutely need food. And with all the ways to disseminate information nowadays, and the childhood nutrition teachings in about every school, I don't feel sympathy for those who choose not to be informed.
     
  12. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page