Funny Events of the "Woke" world

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,285
5,907
118
Country
United Kingdom
To be fair, people that get fat without the "aid" of sugar are rare and obesity correlates with a lack of exercise.
Definitely true. But depending on the person, (for example) saturated fat could play a much larger role, or someone may be overweight/obese without having a directly proportionate sugar intake. I guess that's more what I meant.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,123
802
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I like the bread video, as it shows how the glycemic index is lower for the whole grain bread even if the sugar and carb content is the same. For the second one she should weigh those fruits before eating them.

Because they want to give good alternatives that people want to eat. That's it in a nutshell. Red meat recommendations for the general population have to measure in the fact that people tend to overeat and it doesn't differentiate between all the types of red meat one can have, because generally people like to have different kinds from time to time. And it's good to promote a variety of options on that front (red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, beans etc.) When CDC makes guidelines it doesn't concern itself with people that follow strict diets.
I just kinda wanted to know what an orange did and she actually had the same exact type of orange I buy all the time. I didn't really care about whether it was better than a strawberry or something, but yeah, weight (at least eaten weight) would be a good.

Why does red meat need an alternative or why does it have to be eaten in limited fashion? Why would you recommend specifically to diabetics to eat plenty of whole grains but to limit red meat? That doesn't make sense.

It's not just that, although that's an important element. It's also that health services take a rounded look at the overall research, they don't access a few snippets of unorthodox science and think to themselves "Hm, that's surely God's own truth!" like many YouTube watchers do.
So telling people to eat trans fats was based on a rounded look at overall research? When saying not to eat eggs was based off rounded look at the overall research? When not to eat saturated fats was based off rounded look at overall research? If they actually looked at OVERALL research to begin with, they would have seen Ancel Keys cherry picked his data about saturated fats being bad.

In addition: because weight is a bigger risk factor for the development of diabetes (as attested in those links provided earlier, which Phoenixmgs has of course dismissed as rubbish). And although fruit generally has a higher sugar content, it has less impact on weight, particularly in excess.
It's not... Go to India and take a look at their diabetes problem. Also, weight is a symptom of eating too much sugar a lot of times, it isn't a direct cause to diabetes. Guess what happens with excess sugar?!?! I guess you'll be shocked to hear that the body converts it to FAT.

One might note that the "sugar is poison" is the very much the line pushed by one Robert Lustig MD.

Lustig certainly is (or was, I think he's retired) a substantial researcher in the field of diet and nutrition. However, several of Lustig's theories on sugar are deeply controversial and unproven, and he has pushed them way beyond the strength of the evidence to support, even to the point of crankery. He's also a very good public communicator. An amateur who watches his presentations or reads his books will probably come away thinking this is proper, hard science-backed work. In fact it is not: he presents a very one-sided view, overstating what supporting evidence defends and understating everything else. There are a lot of criticisms of his work from within the field.

For instance, Lustig particularly attacks fructose - but the evidence out there does not significantly implicate fructose as worse than any other sugar (and some other carbohydrates). Herein lies some of the problem with later discussion. Once people have been suckered into the idea that "sugar is poison" then see that other carbohydrates give similar(-ish) insulin responses, it ends in the presumption all these other carbohydrates are also bad. But that is just error mushrooming out if fructose / sugar isn't actually that bad in the first place.

A key point here is that diet is important. And by important, we mean big business. Anyone who points to the national guidelines for healthy eating doesn't make much money. The money is in creating a unique selling proposition (USP). This is where a huge amount of this bullshit spreads, and hence the constant fads. Atkins diet, keto diet, paleo diet, blah blah blah. Then all the influencers get their income streams from pushing this stuff, so they start pumping it. It's a area staggeringly full of bullshit.

All the while in the background, the basic nutritional advice and guidelines are and always have been pretty much okay. Fundamentally, the biggest problem by far, plainly and simply, is that people are eating too much generally.
The guy probably saved me a ton of trouble in life. I think he was on the Daily Show over 20 years ago at this point (I could never re-find that episode) and it was because of him I stopped drinking pop over 20 years ago. Also, when I have said to care about fructose or said every carb is bad? I didn't just get my take on nutrition from him. After hearing a lot of things on the matter from different people, all signs basically pointed to just eating actual real foods. That's why I've never said some specific or trendy diet is the best or anything like that. Eat the real foods that you like and that's basically it.

That is not completely wrong but is also not completely right.

First thing is that humans have evolved to be pretty flexible with nutrition which helped a lot with being able to settle the world over. We don't need a very special diet, we can do ok with what is available in most places. In places with lots of fruits and mild climate all the year, we eat lots of fruits. In places with e.g. harsh winters we can do many months without. When lots of fish is available, it can be the most important part of our diet and in other places we do fine without eating any of it whatsoever.

Second thing is, well, we are still evolving. There is evidence of even relatively recent changes to some of us that e.g. made it easier to use diary. Or alcohol (it's still bad, but has been way worse).

And the third thing is, well, just because early humans did survive, they didn't necessarily get the best or most balanced diet. They generally ate what was available, not what was best for them. Getting enough to eat was more of a concern than what exactly was included.

But you are right, that grains only became a huge part of our diet relatively late. After we found ways to properly process them. And that many early agricultural societies using primarily grain show signs of malnutrition, hinting that their diet had less healthy than what came before. But that is basically just that a balanced died should have some variety because humans are not well adapted to focus on a single type of food.


Overall it is not really helpful to look into the distant part for dietary advice. Also despite all the various gripes, modern humans actually tend to have a somewhat healthy diet. The results are directly seen by how huge we are nowadays on average and partially in how long we live. It still could be better, especially regarding overeating and well, alcohol, but i don't thing the average human diet has been better at any time in history.
I'm not advocating some special or specific diet, just real foods (however you want them mainly but don't min/max to extremes in essence). We have discovered though that meat does have things we need that we didn't know we needed. There are experiments on animals (yes, not humans) where they give the animals all the nutrients that they think they need and don't give them any meat and they end up with significant issues. So we ended up discovering more required nutrients because of those experiments. Meat is also the most nutrient dense food so you can eat less and get everything you need vs other foods. Laslty, humans I believe did live off meat more than other foods considering we didn't instantly have farming.

We are evolving but it's at a slow rate so you can't make massive diet changes over a couple generations and the body can simply just adjust. I kinda love the diary evolution fact that people just keep consuming diary until they acquired tolerance, that is IMO the greatest sacrifice in human history (I love cheese so much).

Has diet had that much of an impact on longevity (not counting just the lack of food being an issue in the past)? I'd be guessing that our longevity is more tied to us not having nearly as many dangers, medical treatments/procedures that now quite easy can advert a death that was common not very long ago, food is just very safe to eat, etc. If people just had our standard of living thousands of years ago eating their normal diet from back then (but with plenty of safe food), I think they'd also live basically as long as us.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,285
5,907
118
Country
United Kingdom
It's not... Go to India and take a look at their diabetes problem. Also, weight is a symptom of eating too much sugar a lot of times, it isn't a direct cause to diabetes. Guess what happens with excess sugar?!?! I guess you'll be shocked to hear that the body converts it to FAT.

Excess weight /can/ result from eating too much sugar... or it can alternatively result from eating too much saturated fat, or just too many calories in general without a corresponding amount of exercise.

Nobody said excess weight was a "direct cause" of diabetes. But it's a greater risk factor than sugar intake, according to research. As is indicated by the fact that those who are overweight are at significantly higher risk *even if their excess weight does not derive from particularly high sugar intake*.

We have discovered though that meat does have things we need that we didn't know we needed.
And yet vegetarians and vegans are fine, with just a little dietary planning-- and in fact experience lower rates of type 2 diabetes, as well as hypertension, high blood pressure, and cholesterol.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,207
118
The recent-ish fad of adding fructose instead of regular glucose -- because of its lower glycemic index, I guess, or maybe just commercial factors -- has been mostly dropped (at least over here). It's worse for the liver, promotes NAFLD. I'd hope most people on this planet were critical of high fructose corn syrup.
Commercial factors, I believe. This is largely about high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which became a staple in North America because it was cheap: Europe still mostly uses sucrose because the economics are different, much less corn production. Technically due to much lower corn production Europe doesn't really make HFCS at all, but it does make an equivalent using corn and wheat. We might also note that the conventional added sugar is sucrose, but sucrose is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose, so 50% of sucrose is fructose. HFCS is usually 55% fructose (sometimes 42%) - the difference is therefore relatively trivial.

Lower glycaemic index is certainly a reason some argue that fructose is preferable to sucrose as a sweetener where diabetes is a concern. Although, obviously, the assumption in any case is moderate sugar intake!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satinavian

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,743
684
118
I'm not advocating some special or specific diet, just real foods (however you want them mainly but don't min/max to extremes in essence).
"real food" is more hype and marketing nonsense than a proper category. And while it does advocate a reduction of sugar and salt (which might be a bit too plentiful in many diets), it is more about avoiding additives like preservatives.

Now does avoiding preservatives make food more healthy ? Well, certainly only if you can get it fresh enough. Which brings us to the next point

Has diet had that much of an impact on longevity (not counting just the lack of food being an issue in the past)? I'd be guessing that our longevity is more tied to us not having nearly as many dangers, medical treatments/procedures that now quite easy can advert a death that was common not very long ago, food is just very safe to eat, etc. If people just had our standard of living thousands of years ago eating their normal diet from back then (but with plenty of safe food), I think they'd also live basically as long as us.
But the food they had access to was not as safe as ours is. Parasites were a threat. Spoiling was a threat. Inpurities were common. And then there is the issue with clear, safe water. And lo and behold a mayor difference of our modern processed food vs. "real food" are a lot of measures to make sure it is not spoiled and otherwise safe as well, when you finally eat it.
And then there is your caveat of "plenty of safe food". There food was not only significantly less safe, it was also not available as "plenty" all the time. Both in regard to total amount and in regard to variety.
Laslty, humans I believe did live off meat more than other foods considering we didn't instantly have farming.
That is believed to be very wrong for most groups of humans. Sure, meat might be denser, but it is significantly harder to get. As far as we know today, most hunter gatherer societies lived primarily from gathered plants. Exceptions do exist, primarily fishing based societies and possibly tundra dwellers but as a rule, our distant ancestors ate less meat than modern humans in first or second world countries. Not by choice, mind you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ag3ma

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,123
802
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Excess weight /can/ result from eating too much sugar... or it can alternatively result from eating too much saturated fat, or just too many calories in general without a corresponding amount of exercise.

Nobody said excess weight was a "direct cause" of diabetes. But it's a greater risk factor than sugar intake, according to research. As is indicated by the fact that those who are overweight are at significantly higher risk *even if their excess weight does not derive from particularly high sugar intake*.



And yet vegetarians and vegans are fine, with just a little dietary planning-- and in fact experience lower rates of type 2 diabetes, as well as hypertension, high blood pressure, and cholesterol.
Technically I misspoke there as you said weight is a bigger risk factor for diabetes than sugar consumption, that isn't true (again, India and it's diabetes problem). Sumo wrestlers are fat/obese and don't get diabetes. You somehow don't think sugar causes diabetes because 1) I say the opposite (so I must be wrong) and 2) you can find an article that says that. You're totally ignoring the mechanisms the lead to diabetes, it all starts at sugar consumption (or something like carbs from bread that get directly turned to sugar). Yes, obese people usually get diabetes so obviously there's going to be a very nice looking association there. I don't care about associations, I care about direct causes.

Vegans wouldn't have been a thing until very recent times.
While fruits and vegetables are among the healthiest foods — and an important part of any healthy diet — some vitamins and minerals are harder (or even impossible) to get from plants alone. Because of this, going vegan can sometimes lead to nutrient deficiencies.

Plants are missing some of the vitamins, minerals, and essential fatty acids plentiful in meat. This means that if you’re vegan, you must routinely supplement your diet or eat fortified foods to make sure you are getting certain essential nutrients.


Those are associations again...

"real food" is more hype and marketing nonsense than a proper category. And while it does advocate a reduction of sugar and salt (which might be a bit too plentiful in many diets), it is more about avoiding additives like preservatives.

Now does avoiding preservatives make food more healthy ? Well, certainly only if you can get it fresh enough. Which brings us to the next point


But the food they had access to was not as safe as ours is. Parasites were a threat. Spoiling was a threat. Inpurities were common. And then there is the issue with clear, safe water. And lo and behold a mayor difference of our modern processed food vs. "real food" are a lot of measures to make sure it is not spoiled and otherwise safe as well, when you finally eat it.
And then there is your caveat of "plenty of safe food". There food was not only significantly less safe, it was also not available as "plenty" all the time. Both in regard to total amount and in regard to variety.
That is believed to be very wrong for most groups of humans. Sure, meat might be denser, but it is significantly harder to get. As far as we know today, most hunter gatherer societies lived primarily from gathered plants. Exceptions do exist, primarily fishing based societies and possibly tundra dwellers but as a rule, our distant ancestors ate less meat than modern humans in first or second world countries. Not by choice, mind you.
Oh, I don't mean you have to have like super real food like what people ate a thousand years ago or anything without preservatives or safety precautions. If you can read the label and basically know what every ingredient is for the most part, that's pretty much it (like the difference between American cheese slices vs cheddar/swiss/etc cheese slices). There's some pitfalls like grains and vegetable oils obviously (just because you know what soybean oil is doesn't make it good and a real food for example, mayo is so bad for you). I'm not gonna be like you gotta eat like grass fed beef (though I've read it is better) vs grain fed. Probably at least like 2/3s to 80% of food in the grocery store isn't what I'd call real food (tons of food is sugars / vegetables oils replacing saturated fats). I just call it real food because it's the simplest term for me, it's not meant to be some hype or marketing term. What else you want me to call it? Salt has also gotten a bad name, it's not nearly as bad for you as they made it out to be.

It seems like it's up in the air quite a bit. I'd just figure hunting for meat is easier and more abundant/consistent form of food than gathering for plants.
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2013
4,591
377
88
Finland
Why does red meat need an alternative or why does it have to be eaten in limited fashion? Why would you recommend specifically to diabetics to eat plenty of whole grains but to limit red meat? That doesn't make sense.
Think about the healthiest red meat (I imagine it would be something like a boiled or even raw ribeye or t-bone steak). Do you always eat that type of meat? Now even if you did, you are just one person. We want to use the whole animal, and we want to eat pork too. When the recommendations are put together they understand that some of the red meat consumption is bacon. Also of course there should be alternatives, it is healthy to include those, fish for example, and once again the simple fact that strict diets are not for the general population. The guidelines are not there to completely turn people's diets upside down, because while that can work for individuals it has been proven again and again to fail statistically. Diabetics can still buy a recipe book. There are probably hundreds tailored to be diabetes-friendly.
Lower glycaemic index is certainly a reason some argue that fructose is preferable to sucrose as a sweetener where diabetes is a concern.
In my understanding this has more recently turned out to be a mistake, because of fructose's bad effects on the liver (and it seems to pop up in research paper results too).
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,123
802
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Think about the healthiest red meat (I imagine it would be something like a boiled or even raw ribeye or t-bone steak). Do you always eat that type of meat? Now even if you did, you are just one person. We want to use the whole animal, and we want to eat pork too. When the recommendations are put together they understand that some of the red meat consumption is bacon. Also of course there should be alternatives, it is healthy to include those, fish for example, and once again the simple fact that strict diets are not for the general population. The guidelines are not there to completely turn people's diets upside down, because while that can work for individuals it has been proven again and again to fail statistically. Diabetics can still buy a recipe book. There are probably hundreds tailored to be diabetes-friendly.
But again why is red meat pointed out as something to be limited when chicken or fish are not? So what if people eat bacon, it's not bad for you. A whole grain (that you're told to eat plenty of) is worse for a diabetic than bacon. Why are you avoiding the elephant in the room? We all know why red meat is being recommended to be limited, they are still using Ancel Keys logic in 2024, that's why. There isn't any more reason to limit red meat as there is chicken. It's probably better advice to limit chicken considering so much chicken is deep fried if you're gonna make such a blanket recommendation, whereas red meat is very rarely deep fried.

I don't care about specific diets, I think trying to do some specific diet is a trap because it's not sustainable for the vast majority of people. They will give up eventually, maybe try another diet and another one, and eventually say "fuck it" and give up.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,285
5,907
118
Country
United Kingdom
Technically I misspoke there as you said weight is a bigger risk factor for diabetes than sugar consumption, that isn't true (again, India and it's diabetes problem).
Why should I believe you over the experts in the field?

Sumo wrestlers are fat/obese and don't get diabetes.
Sumo wrestlers have a documented higher risk of type-2 diabetes, as well as high blood pressure, and a significantly lower life expectancy than average. They actually provide a very good example of my point, because their excess weight doesn't come from sugar (for the most part), but from fermented grain, meat, and vegetables, as well as unbalanced meal times-- yet the higher risk of diabetes is still there.

You somehow don't think sugar causes diabetes because 1) I say the opposite (so I must be wrong) and 2) you can find an article that says that. You're totally ignoring the mechanisms the lead to diabetes, it all starts at sugar consumption (or something like carbs from bread that get directly turned to sugar).
I'm ignoring what you claim to be the mechanisms, because you clearly have a highly simplistic notion of how it occurs, and you're totally at odds with the scientific consensus.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,207
118
In my understanding this has more recently turned out to be a mistake, because of fructose's bad effects on the liver (and it seems to pop up in research paper results too).
I think there's a lot of context and complications here.

Excessive consumption of sugars tends to increase risk of diabetes, period. Consuming fructose is not a magic bullet for that just because it's got lower glycaemic index. It's not a "safe" replacement for other sugars when someone's got a deeply crappy diet. However, in the case where someone is eating responsibly, it may help mitigate high insulin and be beneficial - because at these sorts of levels the impacts on the liver are insignificant.

However, there are a ton of other complexities in here. As discussed, fats also contribute to all these problems. As I understand, fructose is much more likely to cause fatty liver disease if someone is also consuming a lot of fat. So too is insulin resistance increased by fats, both high consumption and obesity. That's a lot of the problem with overly simplistic messages saying the problem's just sugar (or specifically fructose) - it's often the combination of a numerous factors.

As far as I am aware, the primary risk factor of diabetes is still believed to be being obese. If the body has too much energy, it will store it primarily as fats. And it appears to be high fat content that is a major trigger of insulin resistance.

So for instance, if a cell in the body fills up with fats, that will trigger feedback systems indicating energy sufficiency, and one way the cell will do that is to downregulate glucose entry. If this becomes chronic, it's insulin resistance. There is also an association with fats driving inflammation, which also seems enhances insulin resistance. And so on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silvanus

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,123
802
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I know you want some chicken-fried steak now.
Nah, I'm not a fan of batter covering my steak because I like to see where the fat is and cut it off (I hate the texture of fat actually). That's the only instance of fried red meat I can think of.

Why should I believe you over the experts in the field?



Sumo wrestlers have a documented higher risk of type-2 diabetes, as well as high blood pressure, and a significantly lower life expectancy than average. They actually provide a very good example of my point, because their excess weight doesn't come from sugar (for the most part), but from fermented grain, meat, and vegetables, as well as unbalanced meal times-- yet the higher risk of diabetes is still there.



I'm ignoring what you claim to be the mechanisms, because you clearly have a highly simplistic notion of how it occurs, and you're totally at odds with the scientific consensus.
Those aren't experts saying that. You have proof about how the body processes sugar to demonstrate that is wrong.


Again, what you think is scientific consensus and what actually is scientific consensus are 2 different things.

This is the world of your scientific consensus we live in:
1709218961178.png
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2013
4,591
377
88
Finland
But again why is red meat pointed out as something to be limited when chicken or fish are not? So what if people eat bacon, it's not bad for you. A whole grain (that you're told to eat plenty of) is worse for a diabetic than bacon. Why are you avoiding the elephant in the room? We all know why red meat is being recommended to be limited, they are still using Ancel Keys logic in 2024, that's why. There isn't any more reason to limit red meat as there is chicken.
Again and again you've proven to have major illiteracy on this topic. When did Mr. Keys publish his stuff? 70s? 80s? You honestly think when people make guidelines they just take those findings as scripture? There is plenty about nutritional guidelines to comment on and sometimes criticize, but if the underlying idea is that they actually don't give a shit and promote unhealthy diets then I for one am not getting anywhere with it.
It's probably better advice to limit chicken considering so much chicken is deep fried if you're gonna make such a blanket recommendation, whereas red meat is very rarely deep fried.
This would've been a good point three months ago, but I have an air-fryer now.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,285
5,907
118
Country
United Kingdom
Those aren't experts saying that. You have proof about how the body processes sugar to demonstrate that is wrong.
Literally the only reason you're dismissing the guidance of the NHS, Diabetes UK, and University Hospitals is that it doesn't chime with what you thought. There's absolutely zero other reason.

Again, what you think is scientific consensus and what actually is scientific consensus are 2 different things.
So let me get this straight: you disputed that I was citing proper authoritative sources... and then you cite a *lifestyle fluff piece*. Are you not embarrassed?

Here's something with some actual scientific chops, showing a significantly higher risk of diabetes among Sumo athletes, compared to a control group. I look forward to you dismissing it completely.


This is the world of your scientific consensus we live in:
View attachment 10756
Simplistic cherry-picking, completely unserious. Dieticians and experts are constantly pointing out the problems with highly processed foods and excess sugar-- it's just that people like you and that Twitter rando are incapable of reading with nuance.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,123
802
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Again and again you've proven to have major illiteracy on this topic. When did Mr. Keys publish his stuff? 70s? 80s? You honestly think when people make guidelines they just take those findings as scripture? There is plenty about nutritional guidelines to comment on and sometimes criticize, but if the underlying idea is that they actually don't give a shit and promote unhealthy diets then I for one am not getting anywhere with it.

This would've been a good point three months ago, but I have an air-fryer now.
The CDC article about what foods to eat for a diabetic is filled with misinformation from Keys' hypothesis that was never even proven in his time, and it's known to be untrue today.

Limiting chicken is a better blanket recommendation for not only diabetics (since batter is bread and definitely not whole grain) but the general population than limiting red meat is. The recommendations are general and not for you specifically.

You have at least implied (with your bacon statement) and Ag3ma have said saturated fat is bad but neither of you have put forth any actual evidence of it being bad. Also, fat is great for diabetics (as it has like no affect on blood sugar) so why would diabetics be told to avoid it?

You saying chicken can not be deep fried?! HOLY SHIT!!! o_O
And people eating out from a restaurant or fast food, you think they are air-frying the chicken?

Literally the only reason you're dismissing the guidance of the NHS, Diabetes UK, and University Hospitals is that it doesn't chime with what you thought. There's absolutely zero other reason.



So let me get this straight: you disputed that I was citing proper authoritative sources... and then you cite a *lifestyle fluff piece*. Are you not embarrassed?

Here's something with some actual scientific chops, showing a significantly higher risk of diabetes among Sumo athletes, compared to a control group. I look forward to you dismissing it completely.




Simplistic cherry-picking, completely unserious. Dieticians and experts are constantly pointing out the problems with highly processed foods and excess sugar-- it's just that people like you and that Twitter rando are incapable of reading with nuance.
It goes against basic mechanisms of how the body processes sugar. The CDC article here says saturated fats are bad for your heart, that's been disproven.

The thing with sumo wrestlers is that it is hard for them to change their diet after their career.

Glucose tolerance is a parameter that may be compensated for by continuous exercise and increased skeletal muscle mass; therefore, the blood glucose level was lower in the sumo group.

That literally happened... Just because it's a meme image doesn't make it untrue.

And here is the problem with most nutritional studies. They are all observational / questionnaire studies full of inaccuracies and bias.