DailyDirt: Salt, Sugar, Fat... Yum?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Certain things are almost guaranteed to taste good to us -- salt, sugar and fat are just a few examples of ingredients that most people enjoy and (sometimes) can't stop themselves from eating. Eating anything in excess can be bad for you (see the "truckload of vegetables" debating technique), but people seem to especially focus on salt, sugar and fat. Here are just a few links that provide some data points on the health effects of these three tasty food items. If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. icon
    ChrisB (profile), Oct 18th, 2013 @ 5:34pm

    Low fat

    The low fat craze created the obesity epidemic. Food with fat removed tastes terrible, so producers responded by upping the sugar. Sugar is terrible for you, but wasn't too bad when the only place it existed was in the sugar bowl on your table. Now it is everywhere. Fructose (which is 50% of sugar) can only be digested in the liver, and contributes to belly fat. Good job, government busybodies, and your "suggestions" for good food. You've screwed up an entire generation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    out_of_the_blue, Oct 18th, 2013 @ 5:35pm

    Not all sugars are good: avoid High Fructose Corn Syrup.

    I was out of the US somewhat during the time HFCS was substituted into soft drinks for real sugar, and noticed the change. Coca-Cola used to be delicious. (You can now in this area get Mexican product having REAL sugar; everyone I know agrees it's better.) HFCS is not only highly processed in unnatural ways, but just doesn't taste right.

    Unless you're a corporatized weenie resolved to remain blind, it's easy to find reasoned links of HFCS to obesity and bad health. Corporatized processing of foods is far too extensive to even outline, so I'll just say: corporations aren't at all concerned for your health, kids, only with profits; if they can tweak taste or ingredients so you buy more, or make it cheaper substituting chemicals and fillers, then so long as doesn't too provably kill you they'll do it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    out_of_the_blue, Oct 18th, 2013 @ 5:49pm

    Re: Low fat

    @ "The low fat craze created the obesity epidemic."

    That plus concurrent computer and television crazes where snacks are consumed continually in front of entertainments, and almost no one does real work. But you're certainly right that the advertising of low-calorie and healthful foods is a big cause, as everything corporations actually do is always opposite the benefits they state.

    Once upon a time in a pleasant land now far far away, nutritionists were concerned with health. But that was before corporations put stock prices and profits above all.

    Soy products were a big push in the 1970's too; that's usually filler having feminizing estrogens besides apparently fools your body into a sense of being hungry for longer, and more often -- half hour later, you're hungry again. Even McDonald's burgers used to be good before soy was put in; now I wouldn't advise you touch anything from fast food joints unless literally starving.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Roland, Oct 19th, 2013 @ 8:40am

    incentives & news

    If there's a reduction in ethanol in gasoline (I hope), the corn lobby will be looking for other ways to handle this year's corn glut. Even more so if the price of cane sugar goes up, which looks likely.
    "Fire Consumes Brazilian Sugar Mega-Terminal, 180,000 Tons Destroyed"

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    Gene Cavanaugh (profile), Nov 1st, 2013 @ 6:31pm

    Salt and calories

    Two problems with this:

    1. Comparing recommended salt between nations where very hard physical work is the norm (and salt needs, due to sweat, etc., are very high) to the average American is naive. It is like saying apples are "similar" to oranges.

    2. Alcohol does NOT result in fat, just fast-burning calories. True, if you eat and drink, you tend to use the alcohol calories and store the food calories, but then, if you live in space, breathing is a problem.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Losing Fat, Nov 15th, 2013 @ 6:17am


    Well, I used to think that only the total amount of calories mattered. However recent studies (and some old ones too) have shown that excess carbohydrate intake has the most impact on fat deposition.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Hide this ad »
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Hide this ad »
Recent Stories
Advertisement - Amazon Prime Music
Hide this ad »


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.