> The fact you even have to ask this question is telling. Specifically you're talking about Hadza tribe that spends pretty much all of their waking hours outdoors hunting and tracking pray, day in and day out.
Look up Pontzer's Constrained Total Energy Expenditure Model. His doubly-labeled water experiments show that Hadza and other hunter-gathers have--contrary to his (and your) initial expectations--roughly comparable TDEEs to sedentary western counterparts (controlling for lean body mass) due to metabolic compensation (i.e., the more they exercise, the more their bodies compensate by expending less energy elsewhere, on things like inflammation and thyroid/sex hormones): :
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4803033/
Regardless, they're in energy balance, meaning they aren't gaining or losing weight, and despite their high-sugar diets, they aren't presenting any of the metabolic maladies that Lustig ascribes to sugar specifically, and not to weight gain--maladies that saturated fat seems to cause with no weight gain.
> This is akin to asking why do long-distance cyclists who spend 10-16hrs a day on bike on long cross country rides can drink liters of cola every day and be skinny like a fig.
Sugar has 4 calories per gram. Fat has 9. Are you arguing that sugar calories are more fattening than fat calories?
> I'm getting second hand embarrassment from just reading the question.
Fizzino's HPF study, while not an RCT, is the most comprehensive study to date done on HPFs. She's also identified links between HPF proliferation and tobacco companies: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.16332
I cited RCTs in other comments pertaining to macronutrient intake and metabolic health. Lustig instead relies on mouse models and mechanistic speculation to make his case, because the RCTs in humans haven't shown sugar to cause all the ills he claims, without associated weight gain. Meanwhile saturated fat (given the available literature) ironically seems to be able to do much of what Lustig claims (impair insulin sensitivity, increase visceral fat), even without weight gain.
> Seems like you are cherry picking data and ignoring other data from the chart - sure the total sugars from 2000-2020 are down slightly while what’s being labeled as “corn sweeteners” or HFCS is up 3x
HFCS consumption is still higher than it was in 1970, but it has declined since 2000, and its decline has driven the overall decline in sugar consumption, yet obesity and diabetes incidence have only increased.
> some cases T2D can be reversed by minimizing sugars/carbs and increasing fats so your mitochondria is primarily using ketones rather than glucose.
"Reversed" means you can eat carbohydrates normally again. If anything, high-fat, low-carb diets seem to worsen actual insulin sensitivity, which carbohydrate restriction just masks (even then, not always, as many on keto find when they check their BG): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5291812/
Severely restricting carbohydrate enough to get an artificially low HbA1c or fasting BG and claiming you "reversed" diabetes is like claiming you "reversed" your lactose intolerance by never drinking milk. But actual weight-loss (however you achieve it) does improve real insulin sensitivity, but low-carb isn't magic when it comes to that either.
What's your point? The article implied that sugar magically causes obesity and diabetes, all calories being equal, when the weight of the evidence supports neither assertion, and ironically implicates saturated fat as being worse, showing an ability to cause an increase in visceral fat and worsened insulin sensitivity (measured with oral glucose tolerance tests), even in weight-stable subjects.
> different approach to nutrition
The "different approach" HNers gravitate towards is eating bacon and butter (i.e., keto/low-carb) and denying all of the evidence linking these foods to CVD, probably because fat and sodium are so addictive, much more so than sugar: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42028432
> The HPF criteria identified 62% (4,795/7,757) of foods in the FNDDS that met criteria for at least one cluster. Most HPF items (70%; 3,351/4,795) met criteria for the FSOD cluster. Twenty-five percent of items (1,176/4,795) met criteria for the FS cluster, and 16% (747/4,795) met criteria for the CSOD cluster. The clusters were largely distinct from each other, and < 10% of all HPF items met criteria for more than one cluster.
(CSOD, carbohydrates and sodium; FS, fat and simple sugars; FSOD, fat and sodium; HPF, hyper-palatable foods.)
> Check out books by Robert Lustig on the subject
Lustig is a crackpot who relies on animal studies and mechanistic speculation, because the highest-quality RCTs (like the ones I cited) don't support his theory.
Exercise temporarily raises your heart rate and systolic blood pressure, yet avid exercisers have lower RHRs and SBPs; how do you know it isn't the same with carbohydrates, provided fat (especially saturated) is restricted?
And if sugar is so metabolically harmful, where are the RCTs showing this? All I've seen is that outside of a caloric surplus, it isn't especially metabolically harmful, and ironically, even outside of a surplus, saturated fat is much worse:
Because adding fat (usually in the form of vegetable oil) and sodium is the cheapest, easiest way to make food hyperpalatable, and the share of the grocery store shelf space occupied by these products has exploded in the last 40 years, greatly contributing to the obesity epidemic. Ominously, this a trend that the researcher behind that paper I linked to attributes in large measure to the tobacco companies entering the packaged food business:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.16332
Sugar consumption peaked in 2000 and has been in steady decline since, and not only that, but the decline has been led by a decline in HFCS consumption: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38094768
30% of the US was obese in 2000, now it's over 40%, despite per capita sugar consumption reverting to what it was pre-1975.
> The US needs, and has needed, to offset the corn subsidies that get turned into HFCS by adding a "sugar tax" at the consumer side.
If anything, we need a tax on added fat and sodium, the two biggest drivers of food hyperpalatability, when added in excess of the thresholds identified in this paper (> 25% kcal from fat and ≥ 0.30% sodium by weight):
> The HPF criteria identified 62% (4,795/7,757) of foods in the FNDDS that met criteria for at least one cluster. Most HPF items (70%; 3,351/4,795) met criteria for the FSOD cluster. Twenty-five percent of items (1,176/4,795) met criteria for the FS cluster, and 16% (747/4,795) met criteria for the CSOD cluster. The clusters were largely distinct from each other, and < 10% of all HPF items met criteria for more than one cluster.
(CSOD, carbohydrates and sodium; FS, fat and simple sugars; FSOD, fat and sodium; HPF, hyper-palatable foods.)
People are eating about as much sugar per capita now as they were in the early 70s, yet they're fatter and more diabetic than ever, even than when they were consuming significantly more sugar 24 years ago. A tax on added fats (oils, butter, lard) and excessive sodium makes much more sense, but good luck getting such a measure enacted given how effective the propaganda from Big Fat (the dairy and beef industries and people promoting high-fat diets like keto and Atkins) has been.
> Stuff like this tells me the privacy fight is just completely unwinnable
Mozilla has done so many things to weaken users' trust in it (like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39166801) that at this point many regard them as the least worst (rather than best) alternative to the competition when it comes to privacy and the open web.
I'd like to hope that Ladybird will give us a genuine alternative, but Google has ensured that current web standards are so complex that even MSFT (another megacap tech company) threw in the towel on maintaining their own browser engine.
I don't agree. This is something so basic that there isn't, from a Q&A standpoint, a justification for it ending up broken for 2/3rds of a year, and where the kind of hard-line stance Linus takes against certain kinds of regressions is warranted. Also consider that a lot of users have been unhappy for years with how the foundation is running and spending money (e.g., more and more on things unrelated to FF, like this: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/introducing-mozilla-ai-i...).
I use Linux, so initially I assumed it was some weird Linux thing. Until it happened on my father's brand-new Win-11 notebook. This is embarrassing and disappointing. I'm old enough to have used the Mozilla Suite (now SeaMonkey) betas in 2001 and had no reservations recommending early stable versions to friends and family members over IE. Same with Firefox ten years ago. Now? If asked what I'd recommend, I'd honestly tell them idk.
Specifically the right-click menu option, which is often greyed out for no apparent reason. This happens on both Windows and Linux. Ctrl+C still works, but how does Firefox break something as basic as the right-click menu and copy in 2024?