There are some people that argue this actually. Dr Fungs book on type 2 diabetes goes into it.
Basically his take is that while glucose can be distributed in the bloodstream, fructose is broken down by the liver. With high intakes of fructose comes an overwhelming of the liver and higher incidence of fatty liver plus visceral fat. And those things are highly associated with bad health outcomes
How is that different from the thousands of different languages that did not have alphabet until recently but then got one created by linguists or missionaries (or often someone who is a little bit of both[1])?
Cyril and Methodius (who created the Glagolithic Alphabet, not the Cyrillic alphabet) weren't even the first Chritian missionaries who created a new alphabet for a language that didn't have on in order to spread Christianity. I believe the first one was Armenian (in the early 5th century).
It similarly blows my mind how far back many languages go with written accounts. My own native language wasn't written down until the 16th century, so its earlier forms are basically unattested. And the 16th writing is just a few sentences in official records and translations of certain Christian prayers. It took until the late 17th century to have a translated Bible, and for the first non-religious texts to appear. Meanwhile some other languages spoken next door had centuries old literature by then.
That's what's mind-blowing to me about pohnpei. It's an island with an airport and internet. English is the official language but according to my relative the native language is what everyone uses day to day. It has about 40k residents. Literacy is 98%.
Yet with all that, the spoken language remains unwritten. That's just wild to me.
Perhaps my family member confused the fact that the religion had no training materials for the language with there being no written version of the language. (I'm admittedly ignorant about this, I just had a conversation with them on Saturday)
I wonder if the language isn't as commonly written as it is spoken?
To be more precise, Glagolitic was the originally created script, with wholly original letter shapes.
Cyrillic was a later iteration by the Slavs themselves - Bulgarians, to be precise - where those new shapes were mostly replaced with Greek letters (except where there was no direct equivalent), presumably because those guys were translating a lot of Greek books, and having similar alphabets for both Greek and Church Slavonic made things easier.
> The Byzantines created the cyrillic alphabet in the 9th century so that they could write a bible for Slavic countries.
A bit similarly: English uses the Latin alphabet mainly because, as I recall, after the fall of Rome the Christian church was doing much of the writing in (England? Wales? British Isles?), and they adapted the Latin alphabet to the local languages.
For a while being literate in Western Europe was the equivalent of being able to write/read Latin. Also almost all the major languages in (somewhat) literate societies in Western Europe were were either dialects of Latin or in much closer contact with Latin countries than the Greek world (e.g. Ireland or Germany, I don't think we have much if any surviving non-Latin texts from Britain until quite late).
> I think you're underestimating just how hungry people feel
Possible. Or people have no clue what hunger really is.
But still the advice didn’t say “eat every time you are hungry”. It said “A good way to start is to eat only when feeling hungry.” That is actually a prohibition. The advice is equivalent with: do not eat when you are not hungry.
It also in the very sentence admits that this is not the only rule to be followed. That’s the “A good way to start”. Meaning that there are other things to be aware of. One of them being what you eat as you mention.
Thanks for explaining my comment clearly. It was frustrating to see people reading it in isolation and drawing the wrong conclusions either unintentionally or willfully.
reply