- This topic has 60 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 5 months ago by
dumbrenter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 31, 2012 at 2:14 PM #744645May 31, 2012 at 2:18 PM #744646
ocrenter
Participant[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=kev374]How many people have you seen drink an entire glass of Orange juice for breakfast and they are thinking this is actually HEALTHY! while infact they are pouring sugar down their throats and destroying their body.
The public health crisis is also caused due to lack of education. When most people think of sugar they think of sucrose – white table sugar.
They do not know that sugars include all starches rice, wheat, corn etc. (complex carbs). A starch is nothing but a chain of sugar (glucose) molecules. That means white rice, white bread etc. is JUST AS damaging as a can of soda – why not ban those as well?[/quote]
This is a fairly simplistic way of thinking about nutrition. If your point is the fact that ultimately all carbohydrates are broken down into glucose (which in turn is broken down into ATP at the cellular level), then sure, all starches are identical. But complex carbs require more energy to break down to get the glucose out of them, which actually can mean less net gain relative to grams consumed. There’s even debate if fructose and sucrose are processed in different ways by the body. Many of the foods that contain complex carbs also have more other nutrients present as well. I don’t think anyone would claim the carbs from a slice of whole wheat bread and equal carbs from a can of soda are identical for your body.I think the big difference between juice and soda is how they are consumed. Most people don’t drink 32 or 64 ounces of juice in a day. But drinking that much soda isn’t unusual. Generally you can consume anything in moderation, and *most* people drink juice in moderation. If you drink one can of sugar soda a day, there’s a bigger risk to your teeth than your waistline.[/quote]
I don’t think kev374 made a simplistic point. I think it is actually a very good point.
The bottom line here is in the processing.
the processing of the original product significantly magnifies the power of that product. corn processed to the end point of high fructose corn syrup, which is then added to cola products. vs oranges processed to the end point of orange juice. vs coca leaf processed to the end point of crack cocaine.
the end product following the processing in each of the above example significantly more potent chemically for us compared to the original product.
May 31, 2012 at 2:23 PM #744647Participant[quote=markmax33®]Is eating a couple of oranges really much different from having a glass of orange juice?
Does this mean that having a glass of Naked’s Green Machine juice 2-3/week is actually bad for a person?I don’t like this thread, it affirms what my wife is saying.[/quote]
the processing to make the OJ significantly concentrate the amount of sugar.
because of the fiber naturally in oranges (which serve as fillers), no one will ever eat more than 2 at a time. yet a single glass of OJ average out to sugar equivalent of about 6-8 oranges, all without those pesky fiber to interfere with absorption.
May 31, 2012 at 3:19 PM #744651sdduuuude
ParticipantBecause making something illegal is always the answer.
Hopefully the supreme court will stop this one.
May 31, 2012 at 3:23 PM #744652Participant[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]Doesn’t really matter if personal choice works or not. It’s personal choice. The most important freedom to protect. If the personal choices of others don’t work for you, there’s nothing you can rightfully do about it.
[quote=ocrenter]
the problem here is sugar in large quantities can be highly addictive. [/quote]
Food is addictive. Lets ban it.
Same reasoning.May 31, 2012 at 4:08 PM #744654an
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]Food is addictive. Lets ban it.
Same reasoning.[/quote]
Along this same line, going outside is addictive and those with light skin have a high chance of skin cancer. Lets ban that.
We all know about the harmful effect of cigarettes and they’re addictive, lets ban that too.
We all know the harmful effect of beer (they don’t call it a beer belly for nothing) and they’re addictive, lets ban that too.
We all know having children later in life have a higher probability of the baby having down syndrome. This one is not addictive but it have a high cost to society, so, lets ban that too.May 31, 2012 at 4:17 PM #744655Participant[quote=sdduuuude][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]Doesn’t really matter if personal choice works or not. It’s personal choice. The most important freedom to protect. If the personal choices of others don’t work for you, there’s nothing you can rightfully do about it.
[quote=ocrenter]
the problem here is sugar in large quantities can be highly addictive. [/quote]
Food is addictive. Lets ban it.
Same reasoning.[/quote]where did I say I support the ban?
your response is so elementary.
why can’t you see the parallel with smoking and alcohol, where we do not ban the items but we at least put in some breaks in the system and at least block advertisement aimed at kids.
May 31, 2012 at 4:42 PM #744660Participant[quote=ocrenter]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?[/quote]
How many restaurant owners do you know? I know a few mom&pop fast food restaurant owners and it’s nothing like you just described. Portion size are larger is because it’s cheaper to make larger portion and you charge more since the portion size is larger. It’s simple economic. Customers also will feel like that restaurant provide good value, so they’ll come back.Regarding salt. Salty food taste better than bland food. So, unless you’re a perfect cook, it’s smarter to err on the side of salty vs bland.
People who are not well off like to think they get the most for their money. Which is why you see mid to low end restaurants, chains, and fast food tend to have large portion. While if you go to high end places, the portion size are not big at all. They are also not salty at all.
May 31, 2012 at 4:51 PM #744662desmond
ParticipantIf you’re worried about your OJ consumption
“just dew it:May 31, 2012 at 5:29 PM #744670Participant[quote=AN]How many restaurant owners do you know? I know a few mom&pop fast food restaurant owners and it’s nothing like you just described. Portion size are larger is because it’s cheaper to make larger portion and you charge more since the portion size is larger. It’s simple economic. Customers also will feel like that restaurant provide good value, so they’ll come back.
Regarding salt. Salty food taste better than bland food. So, unless you’re a perfect cook, it’s smarter to err on the side of salty vs bland.
People who are not well off like to think they get the most for their money. Which is why you see mid to low end restaurants, chains, and fast food tend to have large portion. While if you go to high end places, the portion size are not big at all. They are also not salty at all.[/quote]
the mom and pop restaurants do not have the marketing and research departments to push the salt and push the quantity. but they end up pushing the salt and pushing the quantity because those two things in the end serve them financially.
I do not think we actually disagree here.
the corporate food world and the mom and pop restaurant owners reach the same conclusion, which is portion size and heavy on the salt equate profit.
This is my point.
The other points you completely bypass, which is the large portions and the salt cause us to naturally eat more. This is more on a hormonal and chemical level.
So now you have a win-win scenario for the food industry.
–they can dial up the salt and dial up the portions
–food tastes better, customers think they get more bang for the bucks, and at the same time, the profit goes up
–but when the customers get sick and are on 4-5 meds in order to maintain this habit, we can’t point fingers at the food industry at all, because it is 100% the fault of the customer.
–and don’t try to limit advertisement to kids, that’s restricting their freedom of speech.
–and don’t force them to put on calorie info, that’s suppressing growth.this is a very good set up.
can you imagine if a crack dealer gets the same free pass like that?
–we process the cocaine into crack because it is more addictive and cheaper
–the customer gets a better high, and they also get more bang for their bucks.
–but when the customer shows up in the ER with a heart attack, we can’t point the finger at the dealer at all, because the addict is 100% responsible.May 31, 2012 at 5:36 PM #744673Participant[quote=desmond]If you’re worried about your OJ consumption
“just dew it:nice!
May 31, 2012 at 6:32 PM #744683ParticipantSo we’re comparing food to crack now? I guess I have no rebuttal to that.
May 31, 2012 at 8:42 PM #744687Participant[quote=AN]So we’re comparing food to crack now? I guess I have no rebuttal to that.[/quote]
sugar activates the same regions of the brain as cocaine.
The key here is introduction to the population of extremely plentiful and very cheap highly processed food and drinks rich in fat and sugar.
The effect is similar to when the inner city population was introduced to extremely plentiful and very cheap highly processed crack.
In the case of crack, the addiction rate skyrocketed. In the case of cheap high calorie processed food and drinks, the obesity rate skyrocketed.
May 31, 2012 at 8:59 PM #744693scaredyclassic
Participanthow about just one year of martial law until we get things under control?
water all around till 6/13.
May 31, 2012 at 10:40 PM #744704Participant[quote=ocrenter]why can’t you see the parallel with smoking and alcohol, where we do not ban the items but we at least put in some breaks in the system and at least block advertisement aimed at kids.[/quote]
I do see those parallels. I don’t really like those laws either. I believe in Darwin.
Enforcing things like this are expensive, time-consuming, not effective, and not our right.
For me, the effectiveness, or effects of something like this are not even up for discussion – We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is dictating the sugar intake of individuals not a clear violation of these rights,m regardless of the intent or outcome ?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.