>HFCS consumption is still higher than it was in 1970, but it has declined since 2000, and its decline has driven the overall decline in sugar consumption, yet obesity and diabetes incidence have only increased.

Because metabolic diseases are progressive chronic conditions. That’s why T2D & fatty liver were historically adult diseases, it’s not because throughout history people gradually increased sugar consumption as they got older and got the diseases, rather the metabolic damage progressed. In short when you are over consuming sugar for 20 years and see obesity, T2D and fatty liver disease increase you don’t necessarily expect to see it decrease even if sugar use slightly decreases…if you want to decrease or eliminate T2D/fatty liver disease then eliminate the sugar.

>"Reversed" means you can eat carbohydrates normally again.

That’s not what “reversing diabetes” means, it means getting off insulin because you manage your BG through diet and lifestyle.

>Severely restricting carbohydrate enough to get an artificially low HbA1c or fasting BG and claiming you "reversed" diabetes is like claiming you "reversed" your lactose intolerance by never drinking milk.

It’s just not a good metaphor because your definition of “reverse” is returning to eating carbs normally was wrong. Lactose intolerance is an acute reaction related to inability to produce an enzyme to breakdown and digest lactose - it’s managed not treated with medication, though some may take the enzyme lactase. Further, taking lactase because you’re lactose intolerant and want to eat some ice cream tonight is in no way comparable to having T2D and the need to take insulin.

News flash - vegans and vegetarians do not need "meat substitutes", as we do not crave meat. Difference between 33% (non-vegetarian) and %39 (vegan)percent of "UPF" is trivial, and probably won't matter and will be offset by lack of carcinogens prevalent in fried meat etc.

Could you explain why you consider nuclear power to be more clean than wind? That seems counterintuitive to me.

The relevant point is that the waste from renewables is dominated by mundane things like glass, plastic, aluminum, and steel.

This means it's pertinent to ask: is the quantity of waste from renewables important compared to the quantity of these produced by society in general?

And the answer is "no". So the problem of dealing with such waste has to be dealt with anyway by society; the waste of renewable energy sources just increments the problem slightly.

This is different from nuclear energy, which introduces an entirely new kind of waste not produced by society in general.

> I have heard 4th generation nuclear is pretty clean.

You heard wrong. 4th generation nuclear doesn't actually exist anywhere but on paper.

I hear nuclear fusionand perpetual motion machines are pretty clean.

If this is about the lead in the solder then this is a huge nothingburger.

> the only clean sources of energy are nuclear and water

> Solar panels are generally pretty toxic to the environment

Nuclear waste is famously clean and Three Gorges Dam has caused the Earth to alter its rotation.

Lunch is not free and never will be free. Part of the problem is pretending that it is or that my one true solution will solve all the problems of the world.