takingastep t1_jdighbi wrote

This pic is kinda messing with my sense of scale a bit. I'm seeing the grass up close in the foreground, and you'd think it'd be knee/waist high at most. But the apparent distance between the foreground and background seems probably a lot shorter than it likely is, so the mountains look kinda miniature, as if a person's height would come up to the 3rd or 4th noticeable layer from the bottom, instead of maybe the 1st layer at most.


takingastep t1_j8pyly1 wrote

I see. I'd suggest that it's more corporate-mandated, because were it not for the undue influence of corporations in government, the government might have put out more sensible diet advice that led to healthier outcomes. I'm aware that that's just speculation.


takingastep t1_j8py41t wrote

Does it have to be "government-mandated" as opposed to "corporate-mandated"? 'Cause I feel like regulatory capture by big corporations is closer to the root of the problem than any government regulations. Then again, I suppose that's not a question for this sub.


takingastep t1_j8nf49n wrote

>When threatened with the possibility of starvation, early humans developed a survival response that sent them foraging for food. Yet foraging is effective only if metabolism is inhibited in various parts of the brain. Foraging requires focus, rapid assessment, impulsivity, exploratory behavior and risk taking. It is enhanced by blocking whatever gets in the way, like recent memories and attention to time. Fructose, a kind of sugar, helps damp down these centers, allowing more focus on food gathering.

>In fact, the researchers found the entire foraging response was set in motion by the metabolism of fructose whether it was eaten or produced in the body. Metabolizing fructose and its byproduct, intracellular uric acid, was critical to the survival of both humans and animals.

>The researchers noted that fructose reduces blood flow to the brain’s cerebral cortex involved in self-control, as well as the hippocampus and thalamus. Meanwhile, blood flow increased around the visual cortex associated with food reward. All of this stimulated the foraging response.

>“We believe that initially the fructose-dependent reduction in cerebral metabolism in these regions was reversible and meant to be beneficial,” Johnson said. “But chronic and persistent reduction in cerebral metabolism driven by recurrent fructose metabolism leads to progressive brain atrophy and neuron loss with all of the features of AD.”

Fructose, as in "high fructose corn syrup"? It may reduce self-control and encourage people to seek out excess food for the mental reward stimulus? And long-term, repeated metabolism of it may contribute to Alzheimer's (which implies that excess consumption of it makes it happen even faster)?

Sigh. If I'm understanding that correctly, I'd think this would count as a motive for various food industries to intentionally use excessive fructose in various food products to manipulate people to buy excess food/drink against their will/better judgment. It would also probably count as evidence of harm caused by including it in food/drink products. One would need harder evidence to prove that they deliberately and knowingly did so, though.


takingastep t1_itg6j73 wrote

I completely agree, because that's precisely what's happened IRL. Aristocrats, like billionaires, should not exist, and their power base (primarily money/assets/whatever political authority they've acquired) needs to be stripped from them entirely.