Isn't awesome how the free hand of the market starts fixing our broken food industry only after a significant portion of the country gets out from under its boot? Just love the US of A more every day.
In fairness, one could characterize that brokenness as being the fault of us, the consumers. The "boot" is self imposed. People demand their Twinkies and 2 liter soda bottles. Undoubtedly, this is a good thing, but it's a tad sad it took a miracle pill to do what good individual decision-making could've accomplished just as well this whole time.
We're running on monkey hardware. People aren't going to make good choices all the time, even the most disciplined and educated among us. It's unethical to intentionally exploit our weaknesses and throw up your hands like there's nothing you could have done.
In any case, here in the US, companies that made money by peddling high sugar/grain diets lobbied to have a practically inverted food pyramid so Americans for generations to come would grow up believing the wrong things about a healthy and balanced diet. That was the culmination of decades of effort by junk food companies to fund fake studies to malign fats to point fingers at basically any food except the problem one: sugar.
I guess I agree with you. Deep down, I wish they hadn't given up on prohibition, and that we'd have banned smoking, too. Still, though, there's gotta be a point where people become responsible for their actions. We're running on "monkey hardware," true, but one who gives in to their monkey brain rage and commits murder will still rightfully end up imprisoned. We expect individuals to have self control.
Couple other notes: I agree that excessive sugar is bad, but there's nothing wrong with whole grains. Also, we talk of corporate lobbies altering the public narrative on nutrition, but honestly, how much does it really matter? How much heed do most people pay to their image of a healthy diet? Is anyone really fooled into thinking soda, or fast food, is good? I don't think so.
Yeah the grain thing is weird because they've over-represented grains on the pyramid because grain products are what the companies were trying to sell, but they also added a ton of unnecessary sugar to a bunch of these grain products and mislead people about the nutritional value Remember those commercials? Shows a bowl of Cinnamon Toast Crunch next to a glass of orange juice "Part of this balanced breakfast!" How about the ones where people would buy and eat Honey Nut Cheerios because they are "heart healthy"? Lol I actually believed that as a kid. They've been sued over this multiple times but courts tend to hold that false advertising is fine as long as there's still some FUD about how bad sugar is for you [1].
> Judge Jeffrey White’s Aug. 13 order said the plaintiffs “cannot plausibly claim to be misled” about the sugar content of their cereal purchases. The company’s front-of-package and side panel labeling lists “all truthful and required objective facts about its products,” he wrote.
> The judge also noted there is no consensus about how much sugar is healthy, Food Navigator reported. “Defendant is under no obligation to warn its consumers that certain levels of sugar may be associated with poor health results,” he wrote.
Back to what you said
> Also, we talk of corporate lobbies altering the public narrative on nutrition, but honestly, how much does it really matter? How much heed do most people pay to their image of a healthy diet? Is anyone really fooled into thinking soda, or fast food, is good? I don't think so.
I personally think that if people understood how habit forming, addictive, unhealthy, and fattening all the junk food is they would make sure their children ate a lot less of it, and eventually that would move the needle. Due to my struggles with childhood obesity that I've managed to get under control as an adult, I'm definitely going to limit my kids' intake of junk food if I ever have any.
> but one who gives in to their monkey brain rage and commits murder will still rightfully end up imprisoned.
In theory prison is part of a solution, but the goals should be to protect the general public and to reform the incarcerated so they can rejoin society and participate more harmoniously than before. Prison as it stands is... Well it's like it was designed by a committee of angry monkeys.
The point of assigning blame here isn't so much a moral exercise as it is to decide what went wrong, how to deal with it, and how to prevent the same failure modes in the future.
It's sugar, not a hard drug. Your agency isn't substantially subverted by the drive to consume it. Self control isn't easy, though; that's why it's a virtue.
> Repeated, excessive intake of sugar created a state in which an opioid antagonist caused behavioral and neurochemical signs of opioid withdrawal. The indices of anxiety and DA/ACh imbalance were qualitatively similar to withdrawal from morphine or nicotine, suggesting that the rats had become sugar-dependent.
This one is even better but should be read in full:
> The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol
> "The indices of anxiety and DA/ACh imbalance were qualitatively similar to withdrawal from morphine or nicotine"
The key word being "qualitatively." Yes, something like a dependency can develop, but unless it's of roughly equal severity to hard drug dependencies, then the comparison is inappropriate. Hard drugs substantially affect one's agency, to a degree which sugar just doesn't.
Do you really think I believe sugar is as much addictive as heroin? Because I don't.
Sugar is addictive, so talking about "individual decision-making" of millions of people like you did, like they lack willpower, is not going to improve the situation regarding the obesity epidemic.
You should do a bit of research of what can be found in supermarkets in developed countries of the EU, and what sort of food norms they have.
Of course you can put any problem on the fault of free will if you really want.
LOL I didn't think it needed to be said! So I didn't include it in my reply to you. I am here replying to someone else, not to you.
I think, generally, it is due to a lack of will, yes. Of course, eliminating the bad options altogether -- I mean, restricting what products can appear in stores -- would be more effective than relying on the willpower of individuals. Although, that would require some serious market intervention...
It's a surprising correlation. I'd expect that increasing popularity of such drug would lead to an increase in amount of sugar added because a) that would make them more "tasty" b) people would become more reckless aka "I can eat more because the pill will help me avoid weight gain". (edited for clarity)
From competitive cycling perspective GLP1 drugs are not helpful, least of all at the highest levels of sport where doping would be a concern that actually gets testing and enforcement.
When I was at the peak of my training, it was legitimately hard to get enough calories. I had days where my caloric intake was approaching 5000kcal (long zone 2 rides). When you're doing that kind of metabolic load, being unable to consume the calories you need means being unable to recover properly.
Outside weight-class or aesthetics-driven sports, it’s hard to imagine any scenario where a GLP-1 analog creates a net advantage.
In endurance disciplines the binding constraint is almost always fuel throughput: if an athlete can’t take in and process enough calories, recovery and performance fall apart. Anything that suppresses appetite or slows gastric motility is basically disqualifying.
You can already see how narrow that margin is in the sheer amount of gels, bars, and mixes riders consume during long sessions.
From that angle, GLP-1 simply doesn’t occupy the same decision space as substances that expand performance capacity or recovery bandwidth.
I am no expert. But I think issue with these discussions is that "hormone" is quite wide area. And they have varying effects. With doping we are focusing on those that affect things like muscle growth or EPO which accelerates red blood cell production. Both which can have harmful side-effects.
With GLP-1 and others there is other effects than those. And thus probably they should not be treated as same. The reality is that discussion lacks this sort of nuance and hormone automatically means bigger muscles...
Isn't awesome how the free hand of the market starts fixing our broken food industry only after a significant portion of the country gets out from under its boot? Just love the US of A more every day.
In fairness, one could characterize that brokenness as being the fault of us, the consumers. The "boot" is self imposed. People demand their Twinkies and 2 liter soda bottles. Undoubtedly, this is a good thing, but it's a tad sad it took a miracle pill to do what good individual decision-making could've accomplished just as well this whole time.
We're running on monkey hardware. People aren't going to make good choices all the time, even the most disciplined and educated among us. It's unethical to intentionally exploit our weaknesses and throw up your hands like there's nothing you could have done.
In any case, here in the US, companies that made money by peddling high sugar/grain diets lobbied to have a practically inverted food pyramid so Americans for generations to come would grow up believing the wrong things about a healthy and balanced diet. That was the culmination of decades of effort by junk food companies to fund fake studies to malign fats to point fingers at basically any food except the problem one: sugar.
I guess I agree with you. Deep down, I wish they hadn't given up on prohibition, and that we'd have banned smoking, too. Still, though, there's gotta be a point where people become responsible for their actions. We're running on "monkey hardware," true, but one who gives in to their monkey brain rage and commits murder will still rightfully end up imprisoned. We expect individuals to have self control.
Couple other notes: I agree that excessive sugar is bad, but there's nothing wrong with whole grains. Also, we talk of corporate lobbies altering the public narrative on nutrition, but honestly, how much does it really matter? How much heed do most people pay to their image of a healthy diet? Is anyone really fooled into thinking soda, or fast food, is good? I don't think so.
Yeah the grain thing is weird because they've over-represented grains on the pyramid because grain products are what the companies were trying to sell, but they also added a ton of unnecessary sugar to a bunch of these grain products and mislead people about the nutritional value Remember those commercials? Shows a bowl of Cinnamon Toast Crunch next to a glass of orange juice "Part of this balanced breakfast!" How about the ones where people would buy and eat Honey Nut Cheerios because they are "heart healthy"? Lol I actually believed that as a kid. They've been sued over this multiple times but courts tend to hold that false advertising is fine as long as there's still some FUD about how bad sugar is for you [1].
> Judge Jeffrey White’s Aug. 13 order said the plaintiffs “cannot plausibly claim to be misled” about the sugar content of their cereal purchases. The company’s front-of-package and side panel labeling lists “all truthful and required objective facts about its products,” he wrote.
> The judge also noted there is no consensus about how much sugar is healthy, Food Navigator reported. “Defendant is under no obligation to warn its consumers that certain levels of sugar may be associated with poor health results,” he wrote.
Back to what you said
> Also, we talk of corporate lobbies altering the public narrative on nutrition, but honestly, how much does it really matter? How much heed do most people pay to their image of a healthy diet? Is anyone really fooled into thinking soda, or fast food, is good? I don't think so.
I personally think that if people understood how habit forming, addictive, unhealthy, and fattening all the junk food is they would make sure their children ate a lot less of it, and eventually that would move the needle. Due to my struggles with childhood obesity that I've managed to get under control as an adult, I'm definitely going to limit my kids' intake of junk food if I ever have any.
> but one who gives in to their monkey brain rage and commits murder will still rightfully end up imprisoned.
In theory prison is part of a solution, but the goals should be to protect the general public and to reform the incarcerated so they can rejoin society and participate more harmoniously than before. Prison as it stands is... Well it's like it was designed by a committee of angry monkeys.
1. https://www.fooddive.com/news/can-cereal-be-sugary-and-healt...
I agree with this argument but it goes both ways. We run on monkey hardware… and our leaders run on monkey hardware.
Those unethical leaders are monkeys like the rest of us. Pointless status hoarding at the expense of populations is part of it.
It’s monkeys all the way down.
The point of assigning blame here isn't so much a moral exercise as it is to decide what went wrong, how to deal with it, and how to prevent the same failure modes in the future.
That’s what I’m talking about too. Understanding that we’re all monkeys is an important piece of the puzzle if you want to deal with the problem.
"we give people heroin and they ask for more, it's the addicts' fault"
It's sugar, not a hard drug. Your agency isn't substantially subverted by the drive to consume it. Self control isn't easy, though; that's why it's a virtue.
Seriously, read some more.
> Repeated, excessive intake of sugar created a state in which an opioid antagonist caused behavioral and neurochemical signs of opioid withdrawal. The indices of anxiety and DA/ACh imbalance were qualitatively similar to withdrawal from morphine or nicotine, suggesting that the rats had become sugar-dependent.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12055324/
This one is even better but should be read in full: > The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2235907/
> "The indices of anxiety and DA/ACh imbalance were qualitatively similar to withdrawal from morphine or nicotine"
The key word being "qualitatively." Yes, something like a dependency can develop, but unless it's of roughly equal severity to hard drug dependencies, then the comparison is inappropriate. Hard drugs substantially affect one's agency, to a degree which sugar just doesn't.
Do you really think I believe sugar is as much addictive as heroin? Because I don't.
Sugar is addictive, so talking about "individual decision-making" of millions of people like you did, like they lack willpower, is not going to improve the situation regarding the obesity epidemic.
You should do a bit of research of what can be found in supermarkets in developed countries of the EU, and what sort of food norms they have.
Of course you can put any problem on the fault of free will if you really want.
LOL I didn't think it needed to be said! So I didn't include it in my reply to you. I am here replying to someone else, not to you.
I think, generally, it is due to a lack of will, yes. Of course, eliminating the bad options altogether -- I mean, restricting what products can appear in stores -- would be more effective than relying on the willpower of individuals. Although, that would require some serious market intervention...
It's a surprising correlation. I'd expect that increasing popularity of such drug would lead to an increase in amount of sugar added because a) that would make them more "tasty" b) people would become more reckless aka "I can eat more because the pill will help me avoid weight gain". (edited for clarity)
But this isn't how the pill works. It doesn't "let you eat whatever you want and still lose weight". It makes you stop craving shit.
It's just insane that I can't find biscuits will less sugar.
Not aspartame or similar, just biscuits will half or one third of the sugar.
I have the same when I look at some beverages and sweets in the UK compared to some European countries.
Similar or even the same product, much more sugar added in the UK. To the point it's not edible (like supermarket cakes).
Most products would taste better if they had half or third of it.
But it's not about taste, it's about dependency.
Reminds me of the arms race between web ads and ad blockers.
Bring the high protein, high fiber foods
I’m not an expert, but GLP-1 is a hormone.
Wouldn’t using something like this trigger anti-doping concerns if an athlete took it?
In sports, manipulating appetite or insulin pathways sets off red flags immediately.
It’s interesting to see the food industry treat the same biological mechanism mainly as a market trend rather than a medical one.
From competitive cycling perspective GLP1 drugs are not helpful, least of all at the highest levels of sport where doping would be a concern that actually gets testing and enforcement.
When I was at the peak of my training, it was legitimately hard to get enough calories. I had days where my caloric intake was approaching 5000kcal (long zone 2 rides). When you're doing that kind of metabolic load, being unable to consume the calories you need means being unable to recover properly.
Thanks.
Outside weight-class or aesthetics-driven sports, it’s hard to imagine any scenario where a GLP-1 analog creates a net advantage.
In endurance disciplines the binding constraint is almost always fuel throughput: if an athlete can’t take in and process enough calories, recovery and performance fall apart. Anything that suppresses appetite or slows gastric motility is basically disqualifying.
You can already see how narrow that margin is in the sheer amount of gels, bars, and mixes riders consume during long sessions. From that angle, GLP-1 simply doesn’t occupy the same decision space as substances that expand performance capacity or recovery bandwidth.
I am no expert. But I think issue with these discussions is that "hormone" is quite wide area. And they have varying effects. With doping we are focusing on those that affect things like muscle growth or EPO which accelerates red blood cell production. Both which can have harmful side-effects.
With GLP-1 and others there is other effects than those. And thus probably they should not be treated as same. The reality is that discussion lacks this sort of nuance and hormone automatically means bigger muscles...
I know ~nothing about GLP-1 meds
Can anyone ELI5 why they're having this effect? Do they reduce impulsivity or make the existing foods no longer palatable?
This video is amazing and goes over all effects: https://youtu.be/YT3BxZNJlhs
Informative sure, but amazing? Everyone's a marketing major in 2025.
Some people sure, but "everyone"? Everyone's exaggerating nowadays.
It reduce your appetite.
Pharma tail wagging the food dog. It’s a sad fact that GLPs are changing food costs. Humans are strange animals.