This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/17/moderation-carbohydrates-lancet-study-sugar
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Moderation in all things – so don’t ditch the biscuits just yet | Moderation in all things – so don’t ditch the biscuits just yet |
| (about 2 months later) | |
| In perhaps the least shocking news of the week, a study published in the Lancet has suggested that a moderate carbohydrate intake is preferable to a low- or high-carb diet. Once again, it seems that it has taken years of scientific study to prove what common sense already knew: everything in moderation. | In perhaps the least shocking news of the week, a study published in the Lancet has suggested that a moderate carbohydrate intake is preferable to a low- or high-carb diet. Once again, it seems that it has taken years of scientific study to prove what common sense already knew: everything in moderation. |
| If only it were that simple. Even common sense recognises that if “everything in moderation” is true then moderation also has its limits. I bet there were people happily puffing away on their Rothmans dismissing the early evidence that smoking was toxic, convinced that a mere half packet a day couldn’t be all that bad. And there aren’t many cuckolds who accept that a moderate amount of adultery is absolutely fine. | If only it were that simple. Even common sense recognises that if “everything in moderation” is true then moderation also has its limits. I bet there were people happily puffing away on their Rothmans dismissing the early evidence that smoking was toxic, convinced that a mere half packet a day couldn’t be all that bad. And there aren’t many cuckolds who accept that a moderate amount of adultery is absolutely fine. |
| The philosopher who wrote the textbook on how to properly understand moderation was Aristotle. His key insight was that most – but crucially not all – virtues lie on a “mean” between two vices of excess and deficiency. Too little parental care is neglect, too much is suffocating and smothering. Too little questioning leads to gullibility, too much to a paralysing scepticism. It can easily sound like common sense but remember that in our Christian culture, virtues and vices are usually seen as polar opposites, not points on a spectrum. | The philosopher who wrote the textbook on how to properly understand moderation was Aristotle. His key insight was that most – but crucially not all – virtues lie on a “mean” between two vices of excess and deficiency. Too little parental care is neglect, too much is suffocating and smothering. Too little questioning leads to gullibility, too much to a paralysing scepticism. It can easily sound like common sense but remember that in our Christian culture, virtues and vices are usually seen as polar opposites, not points on a spectrum. |
| The mean, however, is merely a framework. Working out where the mean lies always takes some work. Aristotle was clear that it is not always found in the middle. So without research, we couldn’t have known whether the optimal carbohydrate intake was low, medium or high. We could only have been pretty sure that it wasn’t going to be zero or the whole of our diet. | The mean, however, is merely a framework. Working out where the mean lies always takes some work. Aristotle was clear that it is not always found in the middle. So without research, we couldn’t have known whether the optimal carbohydrate intake was low, medium or high. We could only have been pretty sure that it wasn’t going to be zero or the whole of our diet. |
| Received opinion is also of limited use because what we perceive to be “moderate” is affected by current norms, an effect psychologists call anchoring. For instance, in our culture, it has long been normal to down several pints of beer in a single session. In this context, “moderate” consumption could be assumed to be two or three a night, which translates to 28-42 units per week, above even the most generous of recent recommended guidelines. Moderation in this context could turn out to mean fewer than 14 units per week – something I’m personally very keen to disbelieve. | Received opinion is also of limited use because what we perceive to be “moderate” is affected by current norms, an effect psychologists call anchoring. For instance, in our culture, it has long been normal to down several pints of beer in a single session. In this context, “moderate” consumption could be assumed to be two or three a night, which translates to 28-42 units per week, above even the most generous of recent recommended guidelines. Moderation in this context could turn out to mean fewer than 14 units per week – something I’m personally very keen to disbelieve. |
| The domain in which the perils of relying on common sense definitions of moderation are most evident is politics. “Extreme” is a political term of abuse, but what appears to be extreme depends on where the centre currently happens to sit. The New Labour years shifted the centre to the right, which made the Corbyn manifesto of 2017 look more extreme than it would have done in 1977. Anti-discriminatory measures that are mainstream today were once dismissed as dangerously radical. | The domain in which the perils of relying on common sense definitions of moderation are most evident is politics. “Extreme” is a political term of abuse, but what appears to be extreme depends on where the centre currently happens to sit. The New Labour years shifted the centre to the right, which made the Corbyn manifesto of 2017 look more extreme than it would have done in 1977. Anti-discriminatory measures that are mainstream today were once dismissed as dangerously radical. |
| Like most enduring wisdom, “everything in moderation” turns out to be nothing more than a vague rule of thumb, something to fall back on in the absence of any other information but certainly not a strict rule to be lived by. | Like most enduring wisdom, “everything in moderation” turns out to be nothing more than a vague rule of thumb, something to fall back on in the absence of any other information but certainly not a strict rule to be lived by. |
| How then should we react when evidence is presented that moderation is not the best? By looking for another mean: between curt dismissal and credulous acceptance. Take the growing evidence that refined sugars are bad for our health. We can’t just dismiss this on the basis that over several decades of most people eating biscuits, cakes and sugary cereals every day, healthy life expectancy continued to rise. Perhaps we’d have done even better without the sweet stuff. But nor should we accept the new orthodoxy too quickly. At this stage, we should proceed with caution, cutting down our sugar intake without assuming it is poison, pure and simple. | How then should we react when evidence is presented that moderation is not the best? By looking for another mean: between curt dismissal and credulous acceptance. Take the growing evidence that refined sugars are bad for our health. We can’t just dismiss this on the basis that over several decades of most people eating biscuits, cakes and sugary cereals every day, healthy life expectancy continued to rise. Perhaps we’d have done even better without the sweet stuff. But nor should we accept the new orthodoxy too quickly. At this stage, we should proceed with caution, cutting down our sugar intake without assuming it is poison, pure and simple. |
| Finding the mean here looks like nothing more than applying Hume’s old maxim that we should proportion our beliefs to the evidence. This isn’t as easy as it looks because the weight of evidence is determined by quality as well as quantity. When we change our minds too quickly, we often ignore the huge weight of past evidence supporting the old view, giving too much credence to what is most recent. When we change our minds too slowly, it’s often because we fail to see that the newer evidence is of a better quality than the larger, but more flawed, body of evidence that contradicts it. | Finding the mean here looks like nothing more than applying Hume’s old maxim that we should proportion our beliefs to the evidence. This isn’t as easy as it looks because the weight of evidence is determined by quality as well as quantity. When we change our minds too quickly, we often ignore the huge weight of past evidence supporting the old view, giving too much credence to what is most recent. When we change our minds too slowly, it’s often because we fail to see that the newer evidence is of a better quality than the larger, but more flawed, body of evidence that contradicts it. |
| One further complication is that there is also evidence about evidence, meta-evidence, if you will. For instance, when considering a conspiracy theory, it is sensible to take into account the tendency for them to be false. In principle, each case is judged on its merits but because you can never know all the evidence you are justified in bringing in some broader generalisations too. That’s why when considering dietary advice, the burden of proof is always on those who deny the middle path. Extreme claims almost always turn out to be wrong. Almost always. So keep eating the biscuits for now, but be prepared to ditch the sugar if the case against it ends up proving conclusive. | One further complication is that there is also evidence about evidence, meta-evidence, if you will. For instance, when considering a conspiracy theory, it is sensible to take into account the tendency for them to be false. In principle, each case is judged on its merits but because you can never know all the evidence you are justified in bringing in some broader generalisations too. That’s why when considering dietary advice, the burden of proof is always on those who deny the middle path. Extreme claims almost always turn out to be wrong. Almost always. So keep eating the biscuits for now, but be prepared to ditch the sugar if the case against it ends up proving conclusive. |
| • Julian Baggini, a British philosopher and author, runs the website Microphilosophy | • Julian Baggini, a British philosopher and author, runs the website Microphilosophy |
| Food | Food |
| Opinion | Opinion |
| Philosophy | Philosophy |
| Sugar | Sugar |
| Diets and dieting | Diets and dieting |
| Food & drink industry | Food & drink industry |
| Biscuits | |
| comment | comment |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |