And what did you just quote me saying?
Eating a certain amount+ of sugar daily/weekly will result in a 100% chance of diabetes.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Sticky Price Consumer Price Index less Food and Energy
Graph and download economic data for Sticky Price Consumer Price Index less Food and Energy (CORESTICKM159SFRBATL) from Jan 1968 to Sep 2024 about sticky, core, CPI, inflation, rate, price index, indexes, price, and USA.
fred.stlouisfed.org
A big portion of this is likely rent, and maybe Auto prices.
Edit: I want one without rent, food, energy, and transportation.
At best, that would be a genuinely absurd amount of sugar substantially worse than most Americans with bad diets so is an unrealistic measure. Which means at worst, because it's not realistic it is effectively untrue. No-one even knows whether it is theoretically true, because it's not been tested!
So, is anything striking you about this point yet:
You people are really immune to basic facts.
No it wouldn't be. And it is true eating a lot of sugar daily will result in diabetes eventually.
Again, you people are immune to facts everything I said there from WMDs to masks to sugar is true. You the fact you can't admit wearing masks outside is beyond ridiculous says it all.
Go on, then, let's see your working on this one. How much sugar is required to give someone a 100% chance of diabetes? And how many people actually consume that amount of sugar? I want actual sources, please.
So then, you'll have no problem identifying the actual daily sugar intake required to generate a 100% chance of type 2 diabetes then.
Come on, we're waiting.
Wearing masks outside to prevent covid infection is mostly pointless, albeit depending on what you are doing.
See how you have created an extreme, reject even any moderation irrespective of justification, and then also falsely accuse us of the opposite extreme? You just can't help yourself!
That's not what I said. I said there is an amount of sugar and higher that you consume regularly, you will get diabetes. I don't know what that amount is nor have I ever claimed to. If you have pre-diabetes and continue the same exact diet you have, you will get diabetes as you are consuming too much sugar.
Again, you guys make up what I said. I never said that. What I replied to Silvanus right above is what I said.
Masks outside are completely pointless. Again, there's no evidence they even worked inside. IIRC, there was no actual confirmed case of covid transmitting outside.
Sure. I told you that years ago. Oh, of course, you don't remember!
The government doesn't directly employ some sort of "super-scientists" who know better than all the people who work in the field. What it generally does, is it goes out and hires people who work in the field to create a panel, the panel draws up guidance, and the government then acts on that guidance.
If the people who make up the panel believe the science says X, then X is what gets reported to the government. The fact that in 20-30 years people will look back and realise it was Y, not X, and in fact there was evidence it was Y all along which had been overlooked doesn't fucking matter when considering the competence of the government.
So bizarrely antagonistic you are (to me, government, or whatever) is that you then attack government intervention. So, you want the government to do nothing at all. It sits there and lets corporations ram vast amounts of crud down people throats, saying "none of our business, it's up to private citizens to look after their own diet". No public health advice of any sort, on any topic - you're on your own, Americans! Why restrict tobacco advertising and have RDAs for vitamins or regulate drugs, it's just the fucking government screwing with people's freedoms.
What are you going on about? We were talking about whose fault it is for the government saying good healthy food was bad. It was the do-gooders that did that, not the food companies as you claimed. The food companies did not originally come to the government wanting to change out saturated fat with sugars and vegetable/seed oils. You're the one moving goalposts.
You get to this conclusion by looking at people who 1) eat lot of sugar and 2) have diabetes. If you like 'common sense' stuff as your guiding light that's fine and all, but you also argue a lot about scientific studies and findings in this thread and others. Picking and mixing will make you sound like a lunatic.
There are fat, unhealthy people who don't have diabetes and won't get it. To them the mechanism isn't "a lot of sugar daily will result in diabetes eventually", but knowing how you argue you'd just put in more qualifiers and claim you are still correct.
You can get fat without eating sugar and you can be normal weight and get diabetes from overeating sugar. In India, tons of people are "skinny fat" and have diabetes because they eat a lot of sugar / processed foods.
The government didn't say healthy food was bad back when it started targetting fats in ~1980, though, did it?
Excessive fat consumption, as countless studies have adequately defended, is bad for health. Fats were correctly identified an unhealthy part of diet, and the government, medical and nutritional groups set about trying to move people away from them. The problem is firstly that fats may not have been the best target (because the harm of sugars was underappreciated at the time), and that food companies just switched to different unhealthy alternatives.
But he's right, though, isn't he?
You keep saying that if people eat lots of sugar then they will get diabetes. And yet not everyone who eats lots of sugar does. It's a bit like saying "smoke enough cigarettes and you have a 100% chance of lung cancer", as if there aren't a load of heavy smokers who never got lung cancer to disprove that.
No. You said that people are eating enough sugar to give them essentially a "100% chance" of getting diabetes.
I want you to back that up. How much sugar is that? How many people eat that much? Sources? You didn't just pull that out of your ass, did you?
Last edited:
Every chainsmoker doesn't even get COPD, which is probably more of an inevitability than diabetes is, and thus a better case for a "100% chance" disease, imo. The body is supposed to metabolize sugar, after all.
I don't think you have any evidence saying saturated fats are bad, all the studies are associations. Sure, if you're making like steaks and just cutting off the fat and just eating that, I'm guessing that would be too much fat. But people weren't eating too much saturated fats on average.
And, again, the do-gooders were the ones that initially caused people to start eating worse, which is what I said and you tried to goalpost away from.
I read the message as there are fat people without diabetes (not that there's people who eat tons of sugar that don't have diabetes). Who eats a ton of sugar and doesn't get diabetes? It can take decades to get diabetes but you will if you eat too much sugar and don't eventually change your diet.
I don't know the amount and it varies by person. For example, I believe Asians can eat less sugar than most and get diabetes. If you're eating so much sugar that you're pre-diabetic and you continue with the same diet, you will get diabetes, it's just a matter of time.
Food Theory just did a video about sugar a couple days back and decent shorthand for what sugar eventually does to you. I remember Cheetodust here talking down to me like I don't know anything about nutrition and he was some expert and said that a keto diet is bad for you because it can cause keto flu when keto flu is just sugar withdrawals (as mentioned in the video because one of them got some hardcore keto flu). And I somehow get accused of not knowing what I'm talking about.
Except that >85% of prediabetic people don't develop diabetes.
So you don't have any figures or sources at all, in short. That 100% chance thing was pure bollocks, wasn't it?