• DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Why do people eat food they know isn’t good for their health? Why do people continue to buy products from companies that have proven to only sell bad products or engage in scumbag practices?

    They all have the same answer.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It turns out in 1961 the American heart Association took bribery money from procter and gamble, who owned and sold “healthier Crisco” cooking oils that weren’t high in saturated fat, like beef and other cooking oils were.

      The AHA then claimed and pushed that saturated fats caused heart disease.

      Problem is, something like 88% of every study done in the past 60 years has found little to no link between heart disease and saturated fats.

      So beef, according to most studies, isn’t bad for you. The AHA was just crooked and on the take, being paid off to sell Crisco.

      Now it is calorie dense and people tend to eat too much of it, but that seems to be a lot of things. Don’t eat too much or you get fat. But apparently, you don’t have to worry about saturated fats being bad for you.

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        WHO report

        someone else online summarized the genetics part as the following:

        Mandelian randomisation studies show that LDL-c is causative in atherogenic plaques 1 and metabolic ward RCTs show that SFA intakes increase LDL-c, while the decrease in SFAs lead to lower total and LDL-c 2.

        But yes, almost all nutrition science is a bit inconclusive because of genetic variation.

        • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Forgive me, because I’m struggling to understand the linked information, but as someone with atherosclerosis this is an issue close to my heart (ha!).

          I just want to make sure I understand you.

          Your link to the european heart journal says that the causal link between LDL and ASCVD is “unequivocal”.

          I think the WHO study says (amongst a lot of other complicated stuff) that replacing SFAs with PUFAs and MUFAs is more favourable than replacing SFAs with complex carbohydrates? The strong implication being (although I couldn’t see this exactly) that higher SFA intake contributes to heart disease.

      • Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Some of us work multiple part time jobs to barely make it.

        I’d probably stay in the basement if I didn’t need to pay my landed lord their monthly tribute.

        • Num10ck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          buy some cheap sliver of land and park a bus on it. save up and find a better sliver of land and plan from there.

      • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Because I live in America and there’s pretty much no public transportation.

        Trust me, if I had a train, I’d fucking use that sucker. Travel into town for my weekly errands AND I don’t have to deal with people not using cruise control on a highway? SIGN ME THE FUCK. UP.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Each individual is facing the following choice in life:

    • sacrifice to save the planet, and fail
    • or not

    People want to immediately jump to “if everyone would just …”

    Nobody is looking at an “everyone does X” button. People only have their “I do X” button available.

    So that is literally the answer to your question. Very few people would sacrifice the civilization to eat a cheeseburger. But nobody has that choice or that power in their hands. Their choice is eat the cheeseburger or not, and the survival of civilization stays rigidly the same between those two choices.

    • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Best response. Almost everyone alive has a net negative impact on the environment. Maybe that one Indian guy who planted a whole forest by himself gets a pass. We can try to be less negatively impactful depending on our inclinations, resources, and other interests and priorities. Some people may choose vegetarianism, some might buy an electric car or install some solar panels, some might organize politically for a new policy. Some might spend their altruism improving social conditions rather than focusing on the environment. But being ever so slightly less of a negative impact on the environment than your neighbour who has a slightly different set of priorities is hardly a reason to feel morally superior.