Kind of like all the sugar substitute correlation “studies” that keep saying sugar substitutes cause the same diseases that being obese cause. Hmmm, I wonder who typically consumes sugar substitutes…
Yeah, this isn’t about comparing almonds vs. pistachios. This is about comparing almonds vs. hot cheetos and takis.
Which, granted, are closer in price now, but when that study came out and was all over the news, it was just classism wrapped up as some health news. At the time even jerky was about the same price as almonds, and gas stations wouldn’t ever carry almonds. Sunflower seeds, peanuts, corn nuts, jerky.
Good point, has any good prospective study been done on this? Seems like something that really should be studied with methodology that can prove or disprove causation.
Yes, artificial sweeteners are literally the most studied food in human history. There are a lot of different chemicals involved so I won’t make any sweeping statements, but all of the most popular ones have been proven over and over to be harmless.
But then things get complicated because the sugar lobby will fund a rat study where they inject an absolutely insane amount of sweeteners into their blood and it obviously fucks them up. Then they publish a study about how the sweeteners cause all kinds of ailments. But when you actually look into it (nobody does) you realize they injected the equivalent of drinking 100 Liters of soda per day, which obviously nobody does.
I think more studies are still warranted. I agreed with you before, based on that available data, but later they have found that the bmi of people who use artificial sweeteners is the same as people who don’t.
2 takeaways can be considered here. First, that just keeps their palate attuned to extra sweetness, which if they just took a break for a bit from all sweetened stuff, even fruit might taste amazing again. Second, it’s possible that it directly affects their microphone, perhaps feeding poorer quality microbes which would lead to all kinds of things, perhaps increasing hunger for foods those microbes like, perhaps affecting their mood, etc.
But those really amount to the same thing. If you can cut sugar, and not supplement with other added sugar, you might consume more fruits and get the associated fiber, which is probably a good thing.
Kind of like all the sugar substitute correlation “studies” that keep saying sugar substitutes cause the same diseases that being obese cause. Hmmm, I wonder who typically consumes sugar substitutes…
Flip side of the studies that show people that eat almonds as a snack live longer.
Almonds are fucking expensive, yo. If you’re snacking on almonds, you’re doing OK already.
what? they are fairly cheap for a nut. that’s why they are so ubiquitous. walnut, pecan, pistachio, macademia… all more per lb.
most other nuts cost more, excluding peanuts.
almonds are about 5 dollars a lb raw, which is the price of cheap cuts of chicken, which is by far the cheapest meat on the market.
Yeah, this isn’t about comparing almonds vs. pistachios. This is about comparing almonds vs. hot cheetos and takis.
Which, granted, are closer in price now, but when that study came out and was all over the news, it was just classism wrapped up as some health news. At the time even jerky was about the same price as almonds, and gas stations wouldn’t ever carry almonds. Sunflower seeds, peanuts, corn nuts, jerky.
I think we should count the costs as including water, low-paid labor, etc. for any product.
ActUalLy: peanuts, although having ‘nuts’ in their name, are botanically speaking legumes from the family fabaceae, like lentils or chickpeas.
Good point, has any good prospective study been done on this? Seems like something that really should be studied with methodology that can prove or disprove causation.
Yes, artificial sweeteners are literally the most studied food in human history. There are a lot of different chemicals involved so I won’t make any sweeping statements, but all of the most popular ones have been proven over and over to be harmless.
But then things get complicated because the sugar lobby will fund a rat study where they inject an absolutely insane amount of sweeteners into their blood and it obviously fucks them up. Then they publish a study about how the sweeteners cause all kinds of ailments. But when you actually look into it (nobody does) you realize they injected the equivalent of drinking 100 Liters of soda per day, which obviously nobody does.
I think more studies are still warranted. I agreed with you before, based on that available data, but later they have found that the bmi of people who use artificial sweeteners is the same as people who don’t.
2 takeaways can be considered here. First, that just keeps their palate attuned to extra sweetness, which if they just took a break for a bit from all sweetened stuff, even fruit might taste amazing again. Second, it’s possible that it directly affects their microphone, perhaps feeding poorer quality microbes which would lead to all kinds of things, perhaps increasing hunger for foods those microbes like, perhaps affecting their mood, etc.
But those really amount to the same thing. If you can cut sugar, and not supplement with other added sugar, you might consume more fruits and get the associated fiber, which is probably a good thing.