- This topic has 60 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 11 months ago by
dumbrenter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 31, 2012 at 12:16 AM #19831May 31, 2012 at 6:29 AM #744590
ocrenter
Participantfruit juices are equally as bad for us. why was it left out? simply because the beverage companies have sold us on them being “healthy?”
May 31, 2012 at 6:33 AM #744591blake
ParticipantGreat! Just another excuse for people to not take responsibility for their own actions. What’s next?
Hamburgers/cheeseburgers can’t have more than one beef patty?
Ban on large pizzas? Pizzas can’t have more than 3 toppings?
Steaks can’t be larger than 8oz?
May 31, 2012 at 6:38 AM #744594SD Realtor
ParticipantYes you live in a country where you obviously cannot take care of yourself so somebody needs to take care of you.
May 31, 2012 at 6:58 AM #744597Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Yes you live in a country where you obviously cannot take care of yourself so somebody needs to take care of you.[/quote]
the problem is a bit more complex than simply personal choice.
if this problem is simply personal choice, then why are 2/3 of all Americans are making the wrong choices now, vs 1/3 making the wrong choices 30 years ago?
the problem here is sugar in large quantities can be highly addictive. the receptors it activates are the same ones activated by heroin. and people develop tolerance to it just like other drugs, and people go through withdrawal as well.
what is happening over the last 30 years is we have created a bunch of addicts, except nobody knows these are addicts.
what is the first step in AA? we are 30 years into this crisis and no one has come out and call it like it is, we got 2/3 of the population addicted to sugar. and we are creating little addicts even before they reach first grade every single day. (this is far worse than even 19th century China when most of the population were hooked on cheap opium dumped into China by Great Britain, substitute cheap opium with cheap sugar, and substitute Great Britain with the food industry today.)
outright ban doesn’t work, and the diet substitute is actually worse (you do not give “fake heroin” to heroin addicts, that just makes them OD at the next fix). we just need to restrict advertising to children, raise the price (coke is frequently cheaper than water), and double down on public education.
we done this before with another natural yet addictive product, nicotine. we can do it again, but the government needs to intervene, absolutely it does.
May 31, 2012 at 7:08 AM #744599ParticipantI don’t know… we have 6 and 7 year olds and we simply do not buy soda for them and limit consumption of that, sugary cereals, etc…
What you pointed out is true however you also missed alot. The fact is that we have highly addictive consumables and mediums all around us. Nicotine, alcohol, porn, gambling, marijuana, etc….
I bet the number of people as a percentage now addicted to internet porn is well over the 1/3 increase that you cited addicted to sugar. I would surmise that addiction can be just as detrimental to our kids as soda.
Clearly the introduction of more and more destructive/addictive products and mediums increases the strains on the population in general.
Seems a little selective to me.
May 31, 2012 at 7:11 AM #744600Participant[quote=blake]Great! Just another excuse for people to not take responsibility for their own actions. What’s next?
Hamburgers/cheeseburgers can’t have more than one beef patty?
Ban on large pizzas? Pizzas can’t have more than 3 toppings?
Steaks can’t be larger than 8oz?[/quote]
at least end corn and grain subsidies, would you at least be ok with that?
by the way, speaking of large portions, why do you think they give you such large portions? out of the kindness of their heart? the larger portions have scientific basis when it comes to increasing profit.
it turns out that hormones that regulate cravings are upregulated after ingestion of large quantity of food. so after overeating, people routinely have craving for more food a couple of hours later. and the craving will always be for the food high in calorie. this creates a cyclical effect where they will continue to loop in the same cyclical eating habits (aka returning to the same type of restaurants that started the cycle in the first place.)
and why do you think restaurant food is so salty?
salt is the perfect appetite stimulant. it also create thirst. (this is when the waitress comes by and ask you if you like a refill on your coke and whether you would like dessert).
everything is studied and surveyed and refined so that they can maximize sales.
if the food industry is spending billions studying you and understanding you, if you don’t pay attention, you become the 2/3 of America that’s in the addict group.
so here’s the question, do we just let that 2/3 of America continue drowning in their fat?
May 31, 2012 at 7:25 AM #744601Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I don’t know… we have 6 and 7 year olds and we simply do not buy soda for them and limit consumption of that, sugary cereals, etc…
What you pointed out is true however you also missed alot. The fact is that we have highly addictive consumables and mediums all around us. Nicotine, alcohol, porn, gambling, marijuana, etc….
I bet the number of people as a percentage now addicted to internet porn is well over the 1/3 increase that you cited addicted to sugar. I would surmise that addiction can be just as detrimental to our kids as soda.
Clearly the introduction of more and more destructive/addictive products and mediums increases the strains on the population in general.
Seems a little selective to me.[/quote]
it is selective because the health implication is so big. it is probably even bigger than nicotine.
we have no soda in the household, no fruit juices either. my 7 year old drinks nonfat milk and water and has no problems.
but you and I are not the problem. plenty of parents are letting their kids down soda pops, Gatorade, and fruit juices whenever they are thirsty.
once a child is obese, there is no going back.
what happens with obesity is the metabolism resets. so that most obese people will regain their weight even just going back to a “normal portion” diet. we are seeing fatty liver disease from obesity becoming the number one reason for cirrhosis. obviously heart disease and stroke are occurring much earlier. teenage diabetes type II’s, with progression to dialysis at age 40, blindness at age 50, amputations at age 60. gout in 20 and 30 year olds. diverticulitis, seen typically in the 60’s or older, are now routinely seen in 30 year olds. 40 and 50 year olds in the prime of their life are on 4 medications routinely to maintain their blood pressure, cholesterol and sugar problems. we have people getting total knee replacements at age of 50, when typically they get the replacements at age 70. cancer rate skyrocketing (turns out sugar promotes cancer growth).
I guess those are some of the reasons I’m being selective on sugar.
May 31, 2012 at 7:29 AM #744602XBoxBoy
ParticipantI predict this law will have zero impact on the health of New Yorkers. Rates of obesity will not decline, nor will other health issues go away.
This will be no more effective than banning large bundles of toilet paper would be at stopping a cholera outbreak.
May 31, 2012 at 7:35 AM #744603ParticipantPeople have personal choice of what they eat and how much they want to eat. If they don’t want fatty or salty food? Cook at home or find meals/restaurants suite them. Eat a bit too much? Go to the gym. Walk around the block.
The problem that I have with these kind of laws (i.e the happy meal’s toys ban in San Francisco) is that they keep re-enforcing people that it’s not their fault for the choices that they’ve made.
Is Gatorade on the ban list? It has electrolyte!
May 31, 2012 at 7:42 AM #744604ParticipantI absolutely agree with the implications regarding the effects of diet on health. There is no argument there. It makes alot of sense fiscally as well.
I just think that the slope becomes quite slippery and the lines can be drawn in an arbitrary manner because of the addictive nature of many many items. I think that you are conveniently not addressing that portion of the topic.
May 31, 2012 at 7:59 AM #744605dumbrenter
Participant[quote=ocrenter] so here’s the question, do we just let that 2/3 of America continue drowning in their fat?[/quote]
How else are we going to solve the social security payments issues?
May 31, 2012 at 8:18 AM #744606no_such_reality
Participant[quote=ocrenter]
the problem is a bit more complex than simply personal choice.if this problem is simply personal choice, then why are 2/3 of all Americans are making the wrong choices now, vs 1/3 making the wrong choices 30 years ago?
[/quote]Because we work too much.
Because too many have both parents working outside the home.
Because we use being busy and having ‘activities’ for our kids as a distraction, many running themselves ragged.
In the end, it is too much stress, too little time to live and too little time to actual plan and prepare healthy meals.
May 31, 2012 at 8:36 AM #744610Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I absolutely agree with the implications regarding the effects of diet on health. There is no argument there. It makes alot of sense fiscally as well.
I just think that the slope becomes quite slippery and the lines can be drawn in an arbitrary manner because of the addictive nature of many many items. I think that you are conveniently not addressing that portion of the topic.[/quote]
but gambling is already regulated by the government, primarily because it is well known to cause addiction. one can argue whether the regulation is too tight or too loose, but it is regulated. nor is it advertised to children since there’s an age limit to gambling as well.
internet addiction is like TV addiction. you can also say people can be addicted to sports or religion. but those you do not see a direct profit from an industry where an industry will heavily promote the use of its products which is well known to be addictive.
that’s the difference.
May 31, 2012 at 8:43 AM #744611Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=ocrenter]
the problem is a bit more complex than simply personal choice.if this problem is simply personal choice, then why are 2/3 of all Americans are making the wrong choices now, vs 1/3 making the wrong choices 30 years ago?
[/quote]Because we work too much.
Because too many have both parents working outside the home.
Because we use being busy and having ‘activities’ for our kids as a distraction, many running themselves ragged.
In the end, it is too much stress, too little time to live and too little time to actual plan and prepare healthy meals.[/quote]
glad you mentioned stress. it turns out we are programmed to look for high calorie food when we are stressed. the stress hormones also upregulate hormones responsible for cravings.
the complete cycle is this: stress induce cravings, cravings lead to bad food, bad food induce more cravings, cycle continues indifinately.
of course, if bad food is cheap and everywhere and all in large portions, then you supercharge that intrinsic craving and the weight just goes straight up.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.