[safety1st]

I know it's going to generate a bunch of responses and consume a bunch of attention, but what value does this drive-by comment add to the discussion, really?

Yeah we know sugar is bad. The article's about screens. It's not really important whether sugar addiction or screen addiction is bigger. This isn't worth fighting over.

They can both be bad and you can post an article about sugar for talking about sugar.

[palata]

I'm directly answering to the comment above, that says:

> Screen addiction is a pandemic. The biggest one humanity has ever seen.

I disagree, sugar is bigger than screens.

And instead of complaining about my answering another comment, you can write an article about complaining.

[Cheer2171]

As you see in other comments, people are debating the relative net effects of other inventions of modernity. I think it is interesting and very HN to think about screens vs sugar. What value does your pearl clutching add to this discussion?

[TylerLives]

Sugar is not bad. https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml

[Sammi]

Not inherently sure. It's a natural part of real food.

But the copious amounts we're ingesting these days? It's actually terrible. A major contributor to the coronary disease epidemic.

[array_key_first]

Yes but it's not just sugar - people are really missing the forest for the trees with this sugar stuff.

Highly processed foods and fast food aren't just bad because of sugar. If you read the nutrition facts, they're extremely calorie dense and contain huge amounts of saturated fats.

Just swapping your sugar intake for steaks and cheeseburgers won't save you. It feels almost like one of those "get rich quick" schemes.

Doctors HATE this one trick! (Just don't eat sugar)

No, actually, you'll still be obese if you do that. You need to eat greens too, and live an active lifestyle, and limit your saturated fat intake, and eat less animal products.

[palata]

I was not saying it's inherently bad. I was saying it's addictive.