Will the government ever take on industries like sugar like it

no.

i also just checked the usda website and they are still pushing that ridiculous food pyramid loaded with carbs

>>132768002
Only if you elect Marge Simpson as your next president.

>>132768002
If you think sugar is the culprit of obesity in America, you have swallowed a blue pill.

Calorie intake in general is the real culprit. A 12 ounce can of vegetable oil is 800kcal, a 12 ounce can of coca cola clocks in at 140kcal.

Now you might say "oh, but we do not drink vegetable oil!" - guess again. If you eat a large French fries between 40 and 45% of what you eat is fat, most of it from frying the potatoes.

Or in other words, eating large french fries from e.g. McD includes 150% of your daily recommended fat intake.

Americans who complain about coke, don't see the big picture. It isn't the 16oz cokes that make you fat and diabetic, it is the large fries, burger and icecream.

You can eat a burger with medium fries... every week once. But that is it. Anything above that will make you obese. But Americans actually eat burgers, deep fried chicken, chicken nuggets, steak etc. etc. ALL THE TIME. Your fat intake is beyond insane. Even on your salads, you put like as much fat as it is required for a whole day.

>>132768367
>i also just checked the usda website and they are still pushing that ridiculous food pyramid loaded with carbs
sugar != carbs.

What people typically talk about in sugar is added refined sugar or glucose. Normal carbs aren't what people are concerned about.

>>132769220
right, and i see they've put dots on the pyramid. but the body, particularly the insulin response, doesn't really care and can't really tell the difference between hfcs and say a bowl of rice where the insulin response is concerned. it's a longer, shallower spike, but it's still a spike and comes with all the same problems

>>132768002
>Implying Americans are allowed sugar.

>>132768002
Probably not, but hopefully it will do so against the Halal and Kosher industries.

File: 1493899121101.jpg (72KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 850x400px

>>132768002
how about you mind your own fucking business and let the people solve their own problems. personal responsibility seem like a massively revolutionary idea to you?

>>132769121
sugar is what converts what you eat into actual fat, hans

>>132769425
>but it's still a spike and comes with all the same problems
What problems? Carbs per se aren't the problem. You can live on a high carb diet just fine. Most people have lived on high carb, low fat diets for the last 10,000 years - ever since we starting farming.

Interestingly enough, obesity and diabetes got out of control with a high carb, high fat, high calorie diet.

>>132769940
>sugar is what converts what you eat into actual fat, hans
So? If you do physical work or otherwise your calorie intake is not above a certain limit, the body cannot convert carbs into actual fat. Simply because it needs to burn what you eat to keep your body up and running.

>>132769121
THIS

There is actually the same amount of calories in milk as in soda...
Also, you can easily become fat by only eating apples.

>>132769981
insulin resistance for one. peaks and valleys of blood sugar that can affect mood and also, more importantly appetite. that's why if you're restricting someones calories so they lose weight, you're going to put them on high fat, moderate protein, very low carb diets. fats and protein are high-satiety, and do not fuck with the insulin hormone. flat blood sugar throughout the day, eating high-satiety foods, and calories come down easily.

hopefully the Abortion industry

>>132770431
>insulin resistance for one. peaks and valleys of blood sugar that can affect mood and also, more importantly appetite.

Please give me a source for that. What I have read is that sharp spikes in blood sugar are not a problem for insulin production. The biggest risk factor for diabetes we know of is high body fat level, as high body fat literally squeezes the cells the produce insulin, resulting in permanent damage.

This is also imperially verified, as statistically vegetarians on a high carb, low fat diet who are not overweight have a very low chance of being diabetic.

>>132770431
>that's why if you're restricting someones calories so they lose weight, you're going to put them on high fat, moderate protein, very low carb diets.
It is impossible to lose weight with diets. 97% of overweight people cannot permanently lose weight. The only way to permanently lose weight is to permanently lower your calorie intake below your daily recommended levels for your height... but you need to do that constantly, even after you lost the weight... or start up high intensity workouts like a pro sport guy.

tldr - high car, low carb - it doesn't matter. calorie intake counts.

>>132771513
that's what i'm saying. for many, a diet high in fat, because fat makes them feel fuller for longer, assists in calorie restriction - which is the only thing that matters. a high fat diet must not also have high carbs, and preferably will have very low carbs due to how strong insulin is as a growth hormone. but you know that.

to oversimplify, you can do high carb/low fat or high fat/low carb. the latter will have a much better appetite-suppressing effect that will assist in calorie restriction.

the vegetarian thing is probably true but a) we're looking at vegetarians who are probably doing tons of different lifestyle and behavioral things (because they're vegetarians), and b) fiber is also high-satiety.

here's something because you asked. i'm only assuming it'll reinforce what you quoted, but i haven't read it due to time constraints. but i'm pretty confident any peer-reviewed publish study on the relationship between appetite and the insulin "rollercoaster" will agree with what i said. sorry i do not have time to find something good
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3894001

>>132768002
The EU already does. My country is a prime example of that.