80
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago

HFCS in basically everything + driving everywhere instead of walking + no time / money to work out or cook healthy food = obesity epidemic.

That my hypothesis anyway. Many other countries have one or more of these issues, but it seems like America is the only one that has the full combination.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

... + driving everywhere instead of walking + ... = obesity epidemic

Obligatory NotJustBikes

[-] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Great channel. Funnily enough, everyone I know that watches his videos is a car enthusiast.

[-] rekabis@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

I don’t hate cars, but the ones I tend to appreciate have less silicon in them than pixie dust.

It’s odd -- I love working with high-end IT stuff as my day job, but I hate computerized vehicles.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

The reason we hate computerized vehicles is because the implementations are horrible compared to what we imagined when we were kids.

In theory, a computerized car should be amazing! In practice, it's an amalgamation of awful security, DRM bullshit and thoughtless UIs.

[-] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Same. I can only tolerate my car because they made a package without the tech, and it has physical buttons for the important stuff.

Working in computer science has made me a luddite. I love computers, but not when normal objects are computerized.

[-] rekabis@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

I can’t understand why certain things are considered in any way “better” than old tech.

Tachometers and speedometers, for example. These used to be plain rotating wires, hooked (respectively) up to the engine prior to the transmission, or to the driveshaft. Aside from the step-down gears (for the instrument cluster dials), that’s all what they were. So if your tach or sped no longer worked, you knew that in 99% of the cases it was a broken cable, and that’s invariably all that it was. You replaced that for a dollar or five, and you were on your way.

Now with electronics, the problem scope of a non-functional tach or sped has expanded to thousands of potential points of failure and potentially equally as much in costs in order to effectively repair.

This doesn’t sound “better” in any shape or form. It just sounds like more ka-ching for the auto companies, as well as a better way to monetize your behavioural use of the vehicle through its computerized Black Box that has an always-on cellular connection to the manufacturer’s mothership.

[-] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

It's better for the manufacturer because it's cheap, sadly. A screen is way cheaper than dials these days. I don't know why luxury cars got them first though. Digital dashboards look cheap as fuck

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[-] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

2015 Q50. It was the last year before a lot of tech stuff got rolled into the base package

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I had a 2017-era car and I regret selling it a year ago.

[-] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah that era was great because you got aux, Bluetooth, and a touch screen, but all the important stuff still had physical buttons and the car didn't come with internet by default

[-] Torvum@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

New Yorkers remain the lowest in obesity, who would have guessed that walking literally everywhere and burning the same amount as your resting rate leads to a recommended 2500 calorie diet making you not gain weight? What do you mean obesity is simply solved by just eating less and actually has not much to do with the foods in question? But my fitness magazines have to sell me their new juice only diet!

Spoiler, diets are hard (calorie restrictions, not fad trash). Humans have spent millions of years evolving in an environment where every meal could be the last for days. You are biologically wired to crave and eat everything in sight, even more so the rare and useful sugar and sodium. In high amounts, these lead to higher calorie intake, obviously these are overdosed consistently. But you are still fighting millions of years of evolution, with only ~150 years of dietary knowledge and the ability for any person of any class to eat at any time. You are programmed to fail.

Adding to the topic though, numerous studies and almost all data shows sugars, refined or not, do fuck all to the obesity cause. They are a byproduct of larger problems.

[-] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I don't think sugars are an issue because they magically create fat, I think they're an issue because they have a ton of calories and make us crave more food.

But other countries have sugar, so like you said, that walking sure helps a ton. I have a friend that likes to alternate between living in their home town, and New York. It's wild to see how much their weight changes every time they move back.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

Just FYI the amount of calories burned by walking and exercise is absolutely minimal compared to your regular resting rate.

Which studies exactly? If you look closer I'm sure you'll find they contribute to poor regulation of various mechanisms related to weight

[-] Torvum@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not true. Within an average day (pending weight and mass overall as well as heart rate) someone walking 15k+ steps a day could easily come close to matching their daily resting rate. An hour of exercise, yes trivial. But simply just not being sedentary will easily get you to needing 3500-4000 calories just to maintain. Of course that's only 1000-1500 more than a man needs on average, and with how easily replaced it is by bad food choices, yes it could also seem trivial. But if maintaining consistency, it could be the difference between success and failure.

http://www.nutritionmd.org/nutrition_tips/nutrition_tips_understand_foods/carbs_versus.html

http://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/simple-carbohydrates-complex-carbohydrates#3

http://www.newhealthadvisor.com/What-Do-Complex-Carbohydrates-Break-Down-Into.html

Bottom line, be slightly active and you're fine. Be sedentary and suffer the consequences of your own actions.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

HFCS is just a scary word. HCFS is just a form of sucrose and believe it or not can containe slightly less or slightly more fructose than regular sucrose 50/50. HCFS 42 is 42% fructose (less than regular sugar) or 55% fructose, slightly more than regular sugar.

HCFS is only bad because it made sugar cheap, but it shouldn't to be blamed directly.

[-] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Agree. The core issue is why the fuck is there so much sweetener in literally everything that isn't in the vegetable aisle.

I was blaming hfcs because of the calorie count, not because of any natural grocers "real food" nonsense.

this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
80 points (93.5% liked)

BecomeMe

767 readers
1 users here now

Social Experiment. Become Me. What I see, you see.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS