Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
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.
Participant[quote=blake]Bloomberg’s Attack On Big Soda Lacks One Thing: Scientific Evidence[/quote]
I agree, the ban misses the point.
The main issue here is the corn and grain subsidies, the advertising to children, and the generally extreme large portions of everything.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]Ending the corn and grain subsidies is a no brainer. Corn is in everything.
Here’s another no brainer.
The ingredient list has to be on the front display of the package, in a font no smaller than 1/3rd the size of the largest font on the package and no smaller than 12 point in Arial MT normal font.[/quote]
it is not a no brainer because the vested interest will fight you every step of the way.
Participant[quote=flu]Wow… Big Government telling us what we can and can’t eat….Nice….
What next? A law banning sex because people don’t use contraceptives?
You think maybe just maybe our government should focus on slightly more important things…Like maybe fixing the fvcking economy??????[/quote]
flu, but you know the economy doesn’t really get fixed via government intervention. you know better than that.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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?
Participant[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.
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?”
Participant[quote=AN][quote=Rentedfor9years]I was 1 out of 1000 people 🙂 who visited,as i have the QC funny money.
Here is my take:
– 92126 zip code => not an interesting zip code, as it is Mira Mesa schools.
– Only Plan 1 has downstairs bedroom => for 650K+ homes no downstairs bedroom ?
– Tax + Mello is 1.35% => Really there is mello here too ?
– Phase 1 and 2 are only released at the moment.
– Phase 1 are backed to Road.
– Phase 2 are starting in 700s even for plan 2s.– All the above numbers without any upgrades 🙂
Looks like funny money at 58.39 is not buying much.[/quote]
Wow, I didn’t know they have MR too. I was assuming they won’t, since MM’s infrastructure has been all built out. Are they using the MR’s money to pay for flattening the hill? If that’s the case, that’s pretty lame.92121 and 92126 goes to the same school, so it makes no differences in term of school.
for a 2100 sq-ft house backing up to Calle Cristobal, if they’re getting $650k+ for it, that would mean they’re at least $50-75k more expensive than houses in 92121 along Sorrento Valley Blvd. That’s amazing.[/quote]
not just $50 to $70k. factor in the $200/month MR and $180/month HOA, now we are looking at $80k in purchase power. although individual payoff of MR shouldn’t be that much…that should help.
what’s the average lot size?
May 30, 2012 at 6:40 AM in reply to: OT: UC school and asian american enrollments going down. #744528Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Hillenbrand is going to Harvard[/quote]
it’s funny only because there’s a lot of truth to it.
Participant1000 people for 113 homes?
are the lines and camp outs back?!!!
May 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM in reply to: OT: UC school and asian american enrollments going down. #744480Participantwe’ve been watching these tracing ancestry shows such as “who do you think you are” and “finding your roots.”
and one take home message is this type of “name changes” that flu is jokingly talking about is extremely common place in the caucasian world, especially with folks of eastern european and jewish origins.
for example, I had no idea Martha Stewart is a 2nd generation polish american. But of course, to be successful, she uses her married name. but then it turns out both of her brothers also changed their last names to hide their non-anglo origin, one even took on his wife’s name.
if people can get away with it, people will change their last names to fit in. makes you wonder how many Smiths and Stewarts are really truly of Anglo origin?
-
AuthorPosts