- This topic has 60 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 11 months ago by
dumbrenter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 1, 2012 at 12:03 AM #744711June 1, 2012 at 6:35 AM #744715
ocrenter
Participant[quote=AN]
So does, sex, excerise, listen to soothing music, spicy food, sun light, laugh, cry, and chocolate.Again your crack and sugar analogy is ludicrousness.
Even if I agree with your premise, it’s impossible to regulate. Unlike tobacco, which doesn’t go into anything else. If you attack the root of the sweet problem, which is sugar and not soda, and tax it, then you all of a sudden introduce artificial food inflation, since sugar is in a lot of different things. Which mean you’ll be hurting the poor and middle class the most, since food cost will affect them the most.
If your goal is to stamp out obesity, then sugar shouldn’t be your own target. Work hours, vacation days, portion size, fat, complex carbohydrate, video games, computers, and many other should have the same amount of scrutiny. After all, if we go back to single income family and mom make home cook meals for dinner and dad and kids brown bag for lunch, then the obesity probably would probably be a non-issue or at least drastically reduced. Also, if kids go outside to play like they used to, instead of sitting in front of the TV or computer, then they would burn off the sugar they consumed.[/quote]
You can not refine and process sex and exercise. You can not box up sex and put a tiger on it and advertise to kids with the tiger saying “they’reeeee ggggrrreeeaaaatttttt.” can you tell me how many commercials on “exercise” a kid sees during Saturday morning cartoons? Compare that to how many commercials kids see on sugary food and drinks.
The point you keep missing here is crack ultimately came from a plant, it is the processing that eventually made it so potent and addictive and deadly. it is the cheapness that made the epidemic of addiction so widespread. This is the same problem with processed food. The processing made the food potent and addictive and deadly, and the cheapness made the epidemic of obesity so widespread.
You are absolutely right, this is going to the hardest battle yet. We won against tobacco and alcohol primarily because these products can be separated into a restricted box, and people ultimately do not need to smoke and drink. Regulation of food would be difficult, Broomberg’s attemp is a good example of the type of problems that can be encountered.
I’ve already mentioned some of the things that can be done, someone mentioned these are no brainers, but the problem is the food lobby kills these attempts at every corner by placing 100% responsibility at the consumer level. If you understand the parallel wih crack, tobacco, and alcohol, you can see the responsibility is more 50/50.
These are just few things
–end corn and grain subsidies, that’s 20 billion righ there. But republicans will fight it hard.
–eliminate advertisement to children. The food lobby will say it is the job of parents to regulate their children.
–mandatory calories info next to every food/drink related advertisement, in addition to calorie info adjacent to prices on menus. Remember the right also fought hard against this when CA introduced a variation of this.
–increased nutrition education in school in regard to addictive potential of overly processed food.
–change the type of food served in schools.
–surcharge on extra calories. An entree that exceeds 600 calories will start incurring a surcharge. This may lead to restaurants pushing buy 1 get 2. But if it’s on another plate, more likely for people to box it up for the next meal than consuming it right there.June 1, 2012 at 7:19 AM #744720Participant[quote=sdduuuude][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 ?[/quote]
If we are in China, a land without MediCal, Medicare, or mandate to treat the very sick or dying, I would totally agree with you.
This goes back to the earlier health care debate. It is a case of all or nothing. We either do a better job with prevention by increasing cost of bad food (via ending of corn/grain subsidies) and eliminating children directed advertisement and enforce calorie info adjacent to pricing, or we eliminate MediCal, Medicare, and the mandate to treat the very sick and dying. I’m ok with either one of he approach. But we can’t be stuck in the middle, this is how we’ll go bankrupt.
June 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM #744739
CoronitaParticipantJune 1, 2012 at 12:08 PM #744771no_such_reality
Participant[quote=outtamojo][quote=squat250]I have never had visible abdominal muscles but I will by the end of this year. I blame junk food.[/quote]
Yeah, I’ve been exercising about an hour a day for the last 8 months and now I’ve got these hard boney things on my side- what are they called again?[/quote]
That’s your trainer’s you know what…
June 2, 2012 at 12:31 PM #744846bobby
ParticipantI agree with the ban in spirit but this is going to fail.
so the portion is smaller. what’s going to prevent the fat kid from waddling over the the fridge to pop open a second can of Pepsi to keep him hydrated while he’s on the 6th hour at the Playstation?June 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM #744851mike92104
ParticipantI’d much rather see a government sponsored education/information campaign rather than banning anything. I think if more people were aware of how much more sugars are being put into processed foods, then most will cut back. This is the best of both worlds to me. Less overweight people, yet preserving freedom of choice.
June 2, 2012 at 6:25 PM #744852an
Participant[quote=mike92104]I’d much rather see a government sponsored education/information campaign rather than banning anything. I think if more people were aware of how much more sugars are being put into processed foods, then most will cut back. This is the best of both worlds to me. Less overweight people, yet preserving freedom of choice.[/quote]
You’re assuming fat people don’t already know the processed and fast food they consume are fattening and are making fat. I think they know and they’re still doing it. All this ban does is make those store richer. My prediction is people will just buy two smaller size, while costs more than one big one.June 2, 2012 at 8:57 PM #744855Reality
Participant[quote=ocrenter]
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.[/quote]
A glass of OJ has about twice the amount of sugar of a medium orange. Two oranges would be the equivalent to a glass. It’s nowhere close to 6-8 times as much sugar.
http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-fruit-vegetable-juices-orange_f-ZmlkPTEwNDg5MQ.html
June 2, 2012 at 10:34 PM #744857Participant[quote=AN][quote=mike92104]I’d much rather see a government sponsored education/information campaign rather than banning anything. I think if more people were aware of how much more sugars are being put into processed foods, then most will cut back. This is the best of both worlds to me. Less overweight people, yet preserving freedom of choice.[/quote]
You’re assuming fat people don’t already know the processed and fast food they consume are fattening and are making fat. I think they know and they’re still doing it. All this ban does is make those store richer. My prediction is people will just buy two smaller size, while costs more than one big one.[/quote]Live and let live then. My point is that as long as people are informed as to the consequences, they should be allowed to make their own decisions.
However, this kind of thinking throws a big fat monkey wrench into Obamacare.
June 2, 2012 at 11:00 PM #744858Participant[quote=JohnAlt91941][quote=ocrenter]
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.[/quote]
A glass of OJ has about twice the amount of sugar of a medium orange. Two oranges would be the equivalent to a glass. It’s nowhere close to 6-8 times as much sugar.
http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-fruit-vegetable-juices-orange_f-ZmlkPTEwNDg5MQ.html
2-4 medium sized oranges for 8 oz, typical drinking glass at 16 oz, that’s 4-8 oranges.
June 2, 2012 at 11:30 PM #744859Participant[quote=ocrenter]
2-4 medium sized oranges for 8 oz, typical drinking glass at 16 oz, that’s 4-8 oranges.[/quote]
I get that fresh oranges have more than the juice, but what about this quote from you?:
“yet a single glass of OJ average out to sugar equivalent of about 6-8 oranges”.
A serving of juice is 8 oz, not 16. But your math still fails.
June 3, 2012 at 12:42 AM #744860CardiffBaseball
ParticipantBloomberg, regarding my 24-oz. Low-Carb Monster, only with my cold dead hands will you remove that drink.
(of course the entire f’ing subway system in NYC only seems to sell Red Bull). I guess the low-sugar versions are safe, but I am warning you Bloomberg don’t screw with my energy drink
June 3, 2012 at 7:44 AM #744865Participant[quote=JohnAlt91941][quote=ocrenter]
2-4 medium sized oranges for 8 oz, typical drinking glass at 16 oz, that’s 4-8 oranges.[/quote]
I get that fresh oranges have more than the juice, but what about this quote from you?:
“yet a single glass of OJ average out to sugar equivalent of about 6-8 oranges”.
A serving of juice is 8 oz, not 16. But your math still fails.[/quote]
I never specified “a glass of 8 oz OJ”. A glass is not a specific measurement. A cup is.
A typical glass, like I mentioned, is 2 cups, or 16 oz.
I cant even find a 8 oz glass anywhere in my house.
Btw, you are missing the main point of the argument. Let’s just go with 1 cup of OJ is 2-4 oranges, the point is still valid. You can drink down that cup in a single gulp, completely devoid of fiber that would at least block some sugar absorption. Giving you a nice sugar spike to stimulate the insulin pathway. In the meantime continue to think you are doing something healthy because that’s what sunkist told you. Go right on ahead.
June 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM #744880Allan from Fallbrook
Participant“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C.S. LewisLiberty is the freedom from coercion.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.