[loeg]

It's mostly obesity, which the article sort of mentions ("known links to obesity") but kind of obscures by saying "obesity does not fully account for the rise" and "a clear answer remained elusive." The medical establishment and journalism have found it extremely uncomfortable over the past decade to notice that obesity has negative health consequences because it might embarrass some fat people, and this is more of that. We know obesity is really bad for you, including causing higher rates of cancer. We know over what time periods young people became more obese.

Have diets really gotten noticeably unhealthier over recent decades? I'm not sure that's the case. We used herbicides and pesticides 20 years ago too, of course. It's becoming increasingly clear that fiber intake is linked to cancer rates, but again I'm not sure diets 20 years ago had higher fiber on average.

[jampekka]

Obesity indeed is a massive elephant in the room in public health discussions. And even in TFA "ultra-processed foods" are put first, which is a) just a silly category, and b) effects from poor quality nutrition are mainly via obesity.

The obesity epidemic is by far the most important public health problem in the developed world, but discussing this publicly, and thus effectively addressing it, is very difficult.

[seszett]

> The medical establishment and journalism have found it extremely uncomfortable over the past decade to notice that obesity has negative health consequences because it might embarrass some fat people, and this is more of that.

I can't help but think about the same thing with "co-sleeping". It's been discouraged altogether on the basis that it increases the incidence of sudden death syndrome in newborns, which sounds like a sensible policy until you notice that co-sleeping actually only increases risk of SDS with obese and/or smoking parents. But you have to actually read the research for that, and it's never communicated like this.

[pluralmonad]

Went down this rabbit hole about "back is best" recommendation for babies. Turns out back is only best for the vanishingly tiny subset of infants prone to SIDS. And appreciably worse for everyone else. "Public health" means something different to bureaucrats.

[phainopepla2]

Where can I read more about this? I've been pilled on the co-sleeping thing, but hadn't heard this about "back is best"

[gchamonlive]

> The medical establishment and journalism have found it extremely uncomfortable over the past decade to notice that obesity has negative health consequences because it might embarrass some fat people

Maybe, or maybe it's the bottomless pockets of the sugar industry lobby.

> Have diets really gotten noticeably unhealthier over recent decades?

Diet is only one of the factors on obesity and it's health consequences, you also have stress, sleep deprivation, lack of exercises, loneliness and isolation.

[jampekka]

Diet and exercise (to lesser extent) are the mechanism of obesity. The other factors may affect diet and exercise. A massive other factor for the latter is driving.

[logicchains]

I don't think the medical establishment is covering it up; if they could sell Ozempic as preventing cancer they'd jump at the idea.

[loeg]

The medical establishment isn't covering it up; they're just embarrassed to say it out loud, directly. Instead they talk around it. GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic may well get to a point where they can be marketed as cancer preventing.