There’s not much agreement about nutrition. On many topics—fat, salt, and carbs to name a few—government guidelines will say one thing, but fans of paleo or vegan or fad diets will insist that the opposite is true. Pretty soon you just don’t know what to think about eggs or white bread or low-fat salad dressing.
But there’s at least a little good news. Most people agree on three basic things: sugar, trans fat, and vegetables. From stodgy mainstream government guidelines, to sometimes-controversial movements like Paleo, to decidedly non-scientific folks like the Food Babe, these are the things almost everyone’s on board with. While I’m sure there is somebody out there who will disagree (and they will probably show up in the comments of this post), these three statements are as close to consensus as you can hope to get.
It’s long been known that eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia are associated with other challenging health issues. Heart problems, osteoporosis, tooth decay, esophageal damage, pancreatitis and kidney failure, among many things, have been linked with eating disorders.
But now a new study has associated the conditions with long-term negative economic consequences, including lower earnings.
While I worry some will get self conscious, I hope this news reinforces the severity of eating disorders and that pursuing treatment is in a sufferers best interest.
If you read into the study, they discuss a bit about how people with eating disorders tend to be much higher on the “perfectionist” type spectrum than most. Some of what may account for the difference between men and women is that because of society, etc, that perfectionism manifests differently in men versus women. Still, it’d have been nice if the sample had the same number of men as women.
The sugar industry convinced the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) that studies that might persuade people to cut back on sugary foods should not be part of a national plan to fight childhood tooth decay, a new study of historical documents argues. The authors say the industry’s activities, which occurred more than 40 years ago, are reminiscent of the tobacco companies’ efforts to minimize the risks of smoking.
There is a sugar/cancer tie-in. The insulin spike from sugar consumption promotes tumor growth. Not that the sugar itself is carcinogenic, but the subsequent insulin flooding exacerbates the cancer. I’ve known people with advanced cancer whose doctors told them this, they went completely off carbs and tumor growth slowed significantly.