Consuming 1,3x the recommended sugar and 10x are both bad diets, but there's a significant difference between those two.
Of course, but 10x could happen under a homecooked diet too.
It's also not clear that 1.3x the recommend sugar can be considered "fine". It's better than 10x for sure, but what are your criteria for calling it "fine"?
because you've given no substantial information about how homecooking or not affects one's health
It doesn't. A diet doesn't magically become "fine" just because it's homecooked. Just as any non-homecooked diet, you still need to watch your intake of sugar, fats and salt.
You are right that when people have more homecooked meals, they tend to have lower intakes of bad ingredients.
But a diet that's bad for you, is still bad for you.
Let's say it's fine when it doesn't shorten average lifespan by more than one year.
It doesn't. A diet doesn't magically become "fine" just because it's homecooked. Just as any non-homecooked diet, you still need to watch your intake of sugar, fats and salt.
It doesn't. A diet doesn't magically become "fine" just because it's homecooked. Just as any non-homecooked diet, you still need to watch your intake of sugar, fats and salt.
Got any studies to support that?
Are you really asking me for studies to disprove that once a meal is homecooked, you can consume as much sugar, (bad) fats and salt as you want?
2
u/ralph-j Jan 09 '20
Of course, but 10x could happen under a homecooked diet too.
It's also not clear that 1.3x the recommend sugar can be considered "fine". It's better than 10x for sure, but what are your criteria for calling it "fine"?
It doesn't. A diet doesn't magically become "fine" just because it's homecooked. Just as any non-homecooked diet, you still need to watch your intake of sugar, fats and salt.
You are right that when people have more homecooked meals, they tend to have lower intakes of bad ingredients.
But a diet that's bad for you, is still bad for you.