The agency wants to lower how much salt we consume over the next three years to an average of 2,750 milligrams per day. That's still above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg.
The agency wants to lower how much salt we consume over the next three years to an average of 2,750 milligrams per day. That's still above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg.
The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday laid out fresh goals to cut sodium levels in packaged and processed foods by about 20%, after its prior efforts to address a growing epidemic of diet-related chronic diseases showed early signs of success.
The agency is now seeking voluntary curbs from packaged-food makers such as PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz and Campbell Soup. The companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
yea, the whole "everything is bad for you if you do enough of it to kill yourself!" is a pretty common response. and yes, that's true. there IS a threshold for everything. one cigarette won't kill you either.
Agreed but the cigarette analogy is not really accurate.
Sugar is arguably good for you in moderation. We evolved to seek out sugar in the form of fruits, berries, etc. Quick energy, fast acting carbohydrates etc.
Can't think of how this translates to a single cigarette lol.
Agree 100%. And arguably "in moderation" is much lower than people might want it to be. Plus most of this stuff is processed with high fructose corn syrup trash.
HFCS isn't even just one product. There are different blends that are all HFCS. At the extreme, HFCS-90, is far FAR different than table sugar. HFCS-55 is close to table sugar (which would be numbered "50" if table sugar used that same numbering scheme), and there's HFCS-42 which is farther away from table sugar.
The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) have been successful in rebranding HFCS under a bunch of different names so you don't know it anymore. Current labeling has HFCS-90 (the worst kind) simply called "Fructose" on ingredient labels now. source
Agreed but the cigarette analogy is not really accurate.
why not? if you're going by "too much of anything is bad for you," then doesn't it follow that "NOT too much of anything isn't necessarily bad for you"?
so yea, one soda won't kill you = true. also one cigarette won't kill you = true.
what i'm getting at is that your "argument" isn't one
But it does need sugar to survive. Comparing sugar to cigarettes is kinda dumb. But you keep making whatever false equivalencies support your argument, boo.
The person you're replying to is clearly uninformed but I do want to let you know that like most things involving the human body, this isn't a one-size-fits-all problem. I did keto but I have nondiabetic hypoglycemia, which is how I got an A1C of 3.9, and how I found out how dangerous that is and that I do actually require some (preferably complex) carbohydrates every day.
I understand nondiabetic hypoglycemia is pretty rare so I still support you fighting misinformation (and especially that no one requires added sugars, which should, by now, just be common sense) but I did want to throw this out there, that folks should absolutely seek a doctor before going all in on a zero sugar diet.
Yes, sugar is needed to survive, but a normal diet with little processed foods will supply more than enough. OP is talking about added sugars which are known to increase risk of heart disease, diabetes, liver disease, etc.
I agree that the comparison is dumb. Regardless, I think a better way to frame your previous statement is nicotine is a known carcinogen while glucose itself is not. Thanks for the snark lol not everything is confrontational. Ease up on your quills, hedgehog.
the body needs glucose which is A sugar. but "sugar" in the context of the conversation is referring to refined sugar, which the body absolutely doesn't need, and when it contains fructose (as in sucrose or HFCS, by far the most consumed sugars), then sorry, it's not good