Umm, the Vashon leftist is leaking out in this piece with the anti-depressent hate. Never mind all of the scientific evidence that it is a physical disease, no obviously it's some moral failing on your part. Never mind that anti-depressents allow millions of people to function in everyday life, no they are just like sugar because... They aren't natural. Maybe if I took them with fiber?

When you say "We're" twice in your title, exactly who is in this 'we' collective you reference?
Just curious.

A moral code that holds humility, aka low self-esteem, as a virtue is great if you're a stand-up comic. It's a joke goldmine. But it's highly toxic if you to hope build habits conducive to long healthy life.

Soylent is the best way to eat less, and to produce less garbage, and waste less time cooking.

But I'm sure happy to hear someone makes $75 hourly on the laptop, I will look into that ASAP cause I'm sure it's totally real.

Right, blame someone else (like food companies) when you decide to put in your mouth.
Weird.
If there was anything which you control, it's your body weight.
But no, we have to give up responsibility to someone else.

There is nothing wrong with sugar! Organic cane sugar that is. Not substitute, or HFCS. Moderation and well balanced is the key, and let your nutritionist or doctor be your guide - not some strange pseudo-scientist writing junk science pieces trying to extrapolate nutrition and economies into a strained capitalist-bashing narrative.

Is Rich Smith trying to become the next Charles Mudede? They both seem to enjoy wandering, vapid flights of fancy in desperate need of editing. As #3 also pointed out, there is the tendency to enjoy painting the reader in broad strokes in a vain attempt to support their forced point.

#7, Soykent is a horrible idea. The refinement alters phytonutrient content as well as spikes the carbon footprint. One of the first few batches had severe quality control issues with mold. One can make better at home.

This analysis ignores importance recent science.

The bacteria in the human gut plays a huge role in metabolism, and the makeup of that biome has changed radically in the last 50 years due to scorched-earth antibiotics, c sections, overly sanitized urban living, etc. Not only have these biome changes increased obesity rates, but they also explain the spike in Krohn's disease, IBS, and diabetes in the 1st world, as well as the increasing incidence of these problems in 3rd world countries who's gut bacterial make up are transitioning to look more like ours.

My sib married into a family who eats totally different foods (wiener schnitzel, sauerkraut, orher dishes I can't pronounce) for Thanksgiving than we do. So what happened? ALL of our dishes AND theirs are made for the spread, because TRADITION! Since we were taught that it was the height of rudeness to not take at least a small portion from each dish while at someone else's table, Thanksgiving dinner has become the "WHY, WHY DID WE DO THIS TO OURSELVES!!" Fest at their home.

Yep, we are truly exceptional at making stressful situations out of celebrations, because we all MUST have what we want.

Sugar in large amounts or unaccompanied by fiber is basically poison. The science is clear and there's been a ton of research on it. And no - many, many people in our country can't really control the amount of it they consume: it's cheap, and they're poor. Please compare the cost of ingredients for a chicken salad full of hole ingredients and a frozen pizza, or Top Ramen, or chips, or cereal, or a frozen meal. And not only is sugar cheap, but addicting.

The Stranger can be part of the solution by having your restaurant reviews include how much fat, sugar, salt, and other processed foods (see Cheese, as in Pizza) are on the menu, versus how much they cook with whole plant foods.

@13 Gut bacteria have changed because diet has moved away from whole fruits, veggies, grains, beans, tubers, etc. You and your microbiome are what you eat. See:
https://www.washington.edu/wholeu/2015/0…

The problem is the sugar comparison is inaccurate or maybe even deliberately misleading. We don't gorge on sugar. In fact, if you gave people sugar only, there would be little obesity. It turns out that sugar in combination with fat - at about 50/50 ratio - is what suppresses signals about fullness and makes us fat.

The argument that rats treat sugar like heroin is a plain lie, and demonstrates misquoted - if not outright misleading use of - research. Rats do not gorge on sugar and they do not put on weight on sugar. They also don't do on plain fat. But they do on cheescake which has a sugar/fat ratio of 50/50. In other words - on high carb & fat diet.

The claim that we absorb sugars faster than we can use them is also not very accurate. While in most cases it would be true, it's not what gets us fat. Calories do not change into fat on a 1:1 basis. Carbohydrates do not just miraculously turn into fat tissue - they have to be transformed. About 40% of carbs are burned in the very process of this transformation.

But hey, sugar is a product of "colonization and capitalism" so it's handy to make a claim that these are some of the reasons that make us fat and broke. I wouldn't be surprised if the book links it to climate change and general civilizational Armageddon waiting just around the corner.