[munificent]

> The only exception to this rule I can think of is McDonald's fries. The more you eat, the better they become. It is true.

Potato chips are, to me, an even more perfect example of this effect. They are engineering marvels. If a food is too salty, you eventually crave something sweet. Too sweet and you get tired and want salt. Potato chips take the sweetness of potato starch and add just the right amount of salt to keep you balanced.

The satisfying crunchiness gives way to carby creaminess, which then promptly dissolves entirely, leaving you feeling like you haven't consumed anything at all [1], so surely one more chip is OK, right?

Potato chips are my crack. If I could eat them unburdened by shame or the desire to take care of my health, I would eat them until I burst.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinar...

[nonbirithm]

It feels like some foods have fervent followings despite contributing to things like heart disease. It's a good example of how humans get thrown off when dealing with decades long timespans of bad choices that add up, except with food we all have to eat.

I recall that when processed meats including bacon were classified as carcinogens, people basically said "screw that, it's bacon for crying out loud." I'm not sure to what extent they were joking. I personally avoid all processed meats, but to me the public sentiment over some unhealthy foods is in stark contrast to public sentiment over smoking or alcoholism.

One time I searched something to the effect of "why are potato chips unhealthy" and got back a general sentiment of "well, they're not that bad for you, as long as it's only once in a while." I feel like with this attitude it adds up over time though. It's probably not possible to pin down exactly what foods caused a heart attack, as opposed to being able to more clearly associate lung cancer with a smoking addiction.

With smoking it provides no real benefit except lessening the craving for another smoke. With unhealthy foods everyone has to eat, so maybe you'd be more forgiven for eating them than throwing away your health on something not essential to survival. Fancy ice cream parlors are the norm, and nobody is going to lobby politicians to close them down in the name of public health. It's just ice cream, served by people working out of food trucks trying to make a living. The most they do is insitute soda taxes. God forbid soda itself is banned.

Is there an illustration on how foods like potato chips affect health long-term? Something like the study that estimates every cigarette takes eleven minutes off your lifespan. There are a lot of different foods to cover though. I feel like if there was data stating every potato chip took X seconds off my lifespan it would be easier to deny myself from buying them by looking through the items at the supermarket and being able to think "17 minutes, 22 minutes."

When I think of someone beginning to smoke I imagine them being told "you're going down a path that will almost certainly kill you down the line." When I imagine someone being a regular at an artisan donut shop I imagine people asking them how the taste was.

[munificent]

> I recall that when processed meats including bacon were classified as carcinogens, people basically said "screw that, it's bacon for crying out loud." I'm not sure to what extent they were joking.

I love bacon. I know it's unhealthy. I still eat it.

You seem to be coming from a perspective where the only goal is to maximize life. But that's not how people operate. People are trying to maximize living.

I could probably live to 110 if I ate nothing but tofu and mineral water and lived in a sanitized bubble. But would I even want to?

I don't want to make choices so unhealthy that they significantly impact the quality and length of my life. But I sure as hell want to pack as many experiences as I can before I reach that point. Some of those experiences are going to take their toll on my body. That's the price you pay for living and for many experiences, the price is worth it.

Personally, I don't think it is for cigarettes. (And, in particular, it is certainly not fair to make people in the vicinity of smokers pay that price.) But many people love the sensation of smoking. I do think it's worth the price to have some bacon with breakfast and a whiskey nightcap before bed.

> I feel like if there was data stating every potato chip took X seconds off my lifespan it would be easier to deny myself from buying them by looking through the items at the supermarket and being able to think "17 minutes, 22 minutes."

You are describing a dystopian nightmare. Can you imagine this applied to every choice you make? You see a cute person on the other end of the bar and a little chat bubble appears in your personal heads-up-display "They will break up with you two years after you begin dating." You look at a cute puppy at a shelter. "She will die young of congenital heart disease."

[perl4ever]

"I could probably live to 110"

The problem is, if you get an extra 20 years, they aren't added on between say 40 and 50. The years from 90 to 110 aren't going to be much fun.

[perl4ever]

Even professionals devoted to measuring life with statistics try to adjust it for "quality", subjective as that may be.

People who live a long time, because of healthy lifestyles, genetics, and modern medicine, often spend a very long time at the end that is really miserable and pointless.

I feel like either you should know what that is like, from knowing people in their 80s or 90s, or you should know that you don't know. If you spend some time visiting a nursing home, do you ever think "gee, every additional month, or year, or decade that I might spend in a place like this is worth any sacrifice in the prime of my life"?