It’s the sugar stupid

Typical New York Times article. As the article itself acknowledges, it’s a bunch of vapid speculation to explain a phenomenon that almost certainly doesn’t exist.

I'll never forget that "healthy diet" pyramid we were shown in school, hot off the American presses. Even as a kid, I could sense it was bogus. It's not normal to eat that much fucking bread, it was just made that way to excuse the massive subsidies to the grain industry.

And, of course, the article has absolutely nothing to do with OP’s text or title. The word sugar doesn’t even appear in the article.

It’s not sugar. It’s calories. You can eat anything. Just reduce calories. It’s very simple.

This post shows why I never read the New York Times. The author wrote an article about a TikTok video she watched. There is no evidence that the opinions the TikTok creator expressed have any relevance or validity. To create the article she fills it with empty speculation that she has to admit in the article itself probably nave no validity.

That's what writing for the nation's leading newspaper now involves. Watching TikTok videos and musing about them.

Their dairy products are better too.