• sandbox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    5 months ago

    Everything about public health policy sucks. The best way to improve nutrition and health is by making eating healthy affordable and easy. It’s too hard and expensive for working people to prepare healthy meals for a family also working 40+ hours a week.

    So many myths and pseudoscience around health, wellness, etc. Basically everything that is talked about is based on really shaky science at best, and outright lies and nonsense at worst. Way too much emphasis is put on weight loss, dieting, waist circumference and so on. Dieting is hugely unhealthy, weight cycling (losing and regaining weight) has worse health implications than just remaining at your original weight, and for most people the weight they are is fine, the health risks around weight are hugely overstated. The BMI is a worthless metric without any scientific basis. Almost everything that people say about sugar is wrong - it’s not physiologically addictive, it doesn’t cause hyperactivity and it’s not poisonous, and it doesn’t cause type 2 diabetes - the causes of type 2 diabetes are generally not well understood.

    The most important thing is having a varied diet with some fruit and vegetables and getting some regular activity - something that you enjoy! Doesn’t have to be major or whatever, if it’s just going for a walk or paintball or whatever, that’s great!

    Fad diets are hugely unhealthy, in general, and should be avoided.

    • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      Time to plan, shop for food, and cook. Time is the only thing separating the healthy and unhealthy. It’s a travesty.

    • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Healthy food doesn’t get advertising or status symbolism. When’s the last time you saw an ad for cabbage, carrots, or dry lentils?

      The affordability is less of a problem than you think.

      • sandbox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        If healthy foods like fruits, vegetables, grains, beans, pulses, etc. were subsidised instead of animal products then they’d essentially be free. Affordability is a huge problem, at least here in the UK. Thousands of people use food banks because they’re struggling with the cost of living. vegan btw

        • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Grains and beans being subsidized would be great, but it would probably make them negative in price. You’d get paid to get them from a store.

          People who think that “vegan diet” or “plant based diet” means “you eat mostly fruits and veggies” are simply and dangerously wrong.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Yup. Eating delicate greens all the time like on cooking shows would be great, but that’s some bougie shit I can barely dream of. I’m not about to set a print record but I still have a better than average diet, and it tastes good.

      • sandbox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        That measures an effect, not an outcome. Is the goal to improve health, or to sell less sugary drinks? All of the evidence we have around using low-calorie sweeteners is that it does not displace the consumption of other dietary sugars, because there is a compensatory effect.

        I invite you to point out what part of my advice you consider to be “shitty”, and back up your case with evidence - because I actually know what I’m talking about.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I feel like you’re taking a grain of truth way too far. The diet-health connection is subtle and poorly understood, but being morbidly obese or eating a really unvaried, processed diet are definitely known to cause harm.

      BMI is shitty because it’s too coarse a measure at the individual level. Unfortunately a volumetric scan to measure internal visceral fat just isn’t as convenient.

      • sandbox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Having a very high weight is known to cause harm, but so is having a low weight, and so is skydiving. Dieting is more harmful to 90% of us than our waistline is, and yet we approve of dieting and refer to fat people as an epidemic.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Yes, because there’s a sudden abundance of overweight people, not underweight people. Epidemic refers to any sudden population increase of a health problem. I don’t think public health people mean it to be stigmitising.

          Dieting is dumb though, you’re right about that. At least locally the authorities try to be clear that you’ve got to make a lasting lifestyle change.

          • sandbox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            There’s no real evidence that there are significant average weight differences between today and 70 years ago. Differences in the proportion of the population of “overweight” people is primarily due to changing the definition of what constitutes overweight.

            And being fat isn’t a “disease”, any more than having big feet is.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              I’m guessing you’ll ignore any evidence I provide based on BMI, which is the only useful form of weight information available at the historical population level (given that it’s based on weight and height, which has also changed)?

              • sandbox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Yes, because BMI is complete junk science. The BMI categories have been changed several times since it was created. It was also devised to work exclusively for white european men. It’s totally worthless for almost every purpose for which it is used.

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Well then, congratulations, you’ve arrived at a stance you can never be argued out of regardless of it’s truth.

                  • sandbox@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Sure I can - find actual average weight, in lbs. of americans in the 1970s and compare them to today. It’s actually pretty easy to change my mind.

                    The problem is that you can’t find that evidence, because it doesn’t exist, because the studies we have show that average weight hasn’t changed very much.

                    You’re the person here who is zealously refusing to change their position based on facts, not me - my views are shaped on years of research and review of the scientific literature. Your views are based on your lifetime of being exposed to a media narrative based on pseudoscience. designed to push an ideological goal.