General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAll of you who criticized Bloomberg over the Soda ban ... consider this
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/its-the-sugar-folks/A study published in the Feb. 27 issue of the journal PLoS One links increased consumption of sugar with increased rates of diabetes by examining the data on sugar availability and the rate of diabetes in 175 countries over the past decade. And after accounting for many other factors, the researchers found that increased sugar in a population’s food supply was linked to higher diabetes rates independent of rates of obesity.
and
Bottom like - Sugar is no different from Tobacco - and it needs to be regulated/taxed ....and in BIG way ... Bloomberg is on the right side of history on this one.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Bloomberg is not on the right side of history unless one's view of history is the endless encroachment of the State to dictate to citizens what the State thinks their priorities should be until people are eventually grow in vats like in The Matrix, with all the right nutrients pumped in.
Perhaps Bloomberg will have all overweight persons driven through the streets by whip-weiding charioteers for an hour a day to provide some much needed exercise.
randome
(34,845 posts)From banning an extra huge soda size to nutrient filled growing vats? Really? 
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)in the streets with Charlton Heston flogging the horses!
Vivid and thoroughly entertaining! Love ya 
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Lmao!!!!
Good luck with that.
srican69
(1,426 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Some people on here make me go 
snooper2
(30,151 posts)for changing the oil in your vehicle...
You wil get oil vouchers from the fed...
If you have a shitty oil spewing engine you will have to hit the oil underground 
Next on the list----
It's evil shit....worse than soda
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Calling sugar toxic is like calling oxygen or water toxic.
mainer
(12,022 posts)Because there's no other way for the body to get sugar.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Very small quantities of water can kill you. That doesn't mean water is toxic.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I'm with Bloom on this too - altho that sure took some courage to do. ''Why, it's my freedumb to be stupid, how dare you encroach!'' doesn't cut it.
green for victory
(591 posts)And THERE you have it, Ladies and Gentlemen!
We need billionaires to tell us not to buy 32 oz of coke!
Hey Bloomie- Shove your regulations- hard
Whisp
(24,096 posts)there is one thing to protect real freedoms and then there is another thing to protect from corporations selling you whatever turns a dollar for them, but harms us all. the difference is quite clear - except maybe if you drink a gallon of pepsi a day crying out 'freedom' after every sip.
roxy1234
(117 posts)I like sensible regulations but I will never want any govt official to regulate what I am doing in the bedroom. So yes, you can like some regulations and at the same time hate others.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)NEVERMIND! I don't want to know.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Deregulating Wall Street hurt millions of people who had nothing to do with the running of Wall Street. Allowing people to drink soda only harms the people who want to drink soda.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)containers of soda?
could there be any stupider analogy than linking bloomberg's soda fascism to 'deregulation,' which typically is used to talk about corporate regulation?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)food".
the smart folks need to tell us how to do it.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I do. And what's really stupid, is that most times everyone here on DU seem to think so too.
but The Soda Story is somehow different. Corp and their product good. Pepsi haters freedom haters.
Pepsi and the like use good water and destroy streams and rivers to make their poison. Polllution from their production is a problem in many communities and their plastic ends up in landfills.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)to Big Soda, struck by the radical mr. bloomberg. not only that, buying small sodas (more packaging) will clean up streams and landfills!
major fail.
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)All the major food producers in the country are driven solely by profit motive, and this means selling as much high-sugar, sodium and fat laden products as they can. They don't give a rats ass if we all wind up sick and diabetic and obese.
.
MH1
(17,600 posts)They wouldn't exist if people didn't buy them. Consuming soda in massive quantities is stupid. Therefore, there are stupid people out there who need someone else to raise barriers to their stupidity.
Although, if it were really true that they only hurt themselves, I would have no problem with it. But people give this crap to children. And they show up in emergency rooms in diabetic comas and with heart attacks and shit. And those of us who support single-payer health care have a bit of an interest in curbing the most awful profiteering by health destruction.
Shouldn't be banned though, because then you only create a black market with those associated problems. Instead, tax it and turn the tax revenue to nutrition education and treating the diseases the crap causes.
johnlucas
(1,250 posts)Bloomberg overstepped his bounds.
If he REALLY wants to stop obesity, he's gonna have to get rid of the the smartphone, the remote control, the washing machine, the dishwasher, the refrigerator, the vacuum cleaner, the subway, the car, the train, the boat, the shoe, agriculture...
Here's reality.
Civilization's ultimate purpose is to grow a bunch of fat happy people.
Every technology we create is designed to make our lives EASIER...so we have to do LESS work.
That's the whole purpose of inventing new things.
We don't do HALF the work people did 100 years ago.
Because we don't put out that much activity, we had to put together this chore called EXERCISE.
When we were a more agrarian-based society, exercise was your daily routine working in the fields.
No need & no time for those unnatural exercises then.
We ate carbohydrate-rich diets to allow us the energy to work those fields.
But as our technology grew, we didn't change the diets so we just store the excess energy as fat.
We STILL preach about eating Breakfast, Lunch, & Dinner but we have nowhere to spend all of the energy from those meals.
THEN you got such easy access to food in this country at every corner that you can't HELP but to get fat.
And some people gain weight faster than others. You know that basic variation of life that affects all species.
With the technology of this internet age, now people don't even have to walk to the bank or post office or utility companies to pay their bills or mail messages.
It's all done online now.
What do you expect?
All Bloomberg's dumb ass is gonna do is cause people to buy MORE drinks to make up for the big drinks they can no longer get.
All the sugar just making them even fatter.
This country is VERY hypocritical when it comes to the weight issue.
Trying to demonize the fat form but doing absolutely everything to ensure that it exists.
Wait until they finally invent the Toilet Couch that Homer Simpson dreamed of!
Then people won't even have to leave their living rooms!
Everything in moderation.
INCLUDING exercise.
No matter how "fit" you make yourself, your ass is still gonna die like everyone else.
At least the ones who don't buy into that food nazi crap will have had some fun before they died.
George Burns smoked a cigar every day & lived to 100.
Brian Maxwell, the fit athletic co-creator of the PowerBar, ran marathons & lived to 51.
Who's more healthy?
Think about it. If everyone was peak health & fitness, then the doctors wouldn't have a job, would they?
How are they gonna get better at fixing the human body if they never deal with a body that breaks?
John Lucas
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)can't legalize marijuana "because people might put something in their body we don't like." I'll bet you're a big fan of the War on Drugs.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)seeing as you don't believe in regulations for the good of all, why don't you repeal that law that says you must drive on the right lane and change it to the left, like they do in England.
But you go first.
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts),but unlike you I don't believe in telling people what they should be putting in their bodies.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)
Like actually reading what I wrote, but that's okay.
That is what I do all day, just walk about and tell people what can be put into their bodies. Why just this morning I was walking my dog, and a neighbour was putting something in his body (a coffee from 7/11) and I chastised him good. My dog got a word or two in as well.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)that government step in. Emissions, miles per gallon, lead paint ban, and alcohol use are all regulated to address public health issues.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)So by your rationale...
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.
There is a general correlation between alcohol consumption and violence toward a spouse or partner: They sometimes occur together. But does drinking actually cause abuse in a relationship? Researchers and other experts warn against jumping to the conclusion that it does.
It’s easy to fall into the trap of assuming that a relationship between two things means that one causes the other. For example, the number of people who drown is correlated with the consumption of ice cream. But neither causes the other. In warmer weather more people eat more ice cream and more people go swimming, which increases the chances of drowning.
Experts emphasize that there is no research evidence that alcohol consumption or even alcohol abuse causes domestic violence. Furthermore, the majority of alcoholics and other men who abuse alcohol don’t abuse their partners and most instances of abuse occur in the absence of any alcohol consumption at all.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1090863351.html
Stop Violence Against Women
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/domestic/link/alcohol.htm
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Again, why not regulate alcohol consumption to mitigate this sort of behavior?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)If some abusers can't use alcohol as an excuse, they will use something out... That is, instead of saying, "I'm sorry but I was drunk," the abuser will say, "I'm sorry, but I was cranky because I skipped." (An excuse, I heard after my abuser hit me.)
An abuser will use any excuse available other than take personal responsibility. Alcohol can be a handy one. An abuser who stops drinking will not stop abusing.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Definition
fa·cil·i·tate[ fə sílli tàyt ]TRANSITIVE VERB
1. simplify process: to make something easy or easier to do
"If some abusers can't use alcohol as an excuse, they will use something out..."
But how many alcohol-related rapes, assaults, traffic accidents and DV incidences *could* be prevented?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)How many traffic accidents could be avoided by banning cars?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
Brainstormy
(2,380 posts)I doubt that anyone here wants to return to the days of selling, and advertising, cigarettes to children.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)And I am equally sickended by it no matter who's mouth it comes from.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)And let me guess: you have selected yourself to be part of the self-appointed group that writes the definition of what is good, what is bad, what is smart and what is stupid and if anybody disagrees then they are obviously proving how much they require your services.
Once upon a time "democracy" meant people governed themselves. Apparently they were "too stupid" and need their betters to govern their lives down to their caloric intake.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)one doesn't need a medical degree to know that.
pushing stuff on the public that is bad for them,but good for corporate profits shouldn't need special knowledge to recognize either.
and Yah, people are generally too stupid on their own. We need a lot of the laws that we have otherwise it would be chaos. Unless one is a libertarian, then they have some other way of doing things which I can never understand and never will understand.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)People can overdose on aspirin and I'm sure aspirin corporations also make profits and advertise their products.
There are people who are vegans, presumably for the health benefits, that become so overzealous they leave their kids malnourished. That's not an indictment of vegans and the last thing vegans needs is some pushy, know-it-all do-gooder invading their lives in the name of doing what is best for them because they're presumably too stupid because someone else was too stupid.
The only people who are too stupid are those who think they know what's best for everyone else and ought to have the power to make it law.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)about some people that scream out 'don't take my gallon sized freedumb pepsi away. you fascist!' but will lay down and take all kinds of shit from their politicians and corporations like they were in a coma.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)someone thinking that politicians and corporations have too much power but then want to have the power to dictate people's lives down to what they're allowed to eat.
We're fighting hard enough to keep them out of our bedrooms and phone lines only to invite them into our kitchens. Unless something actually criminal is going on the government needs to stay out of my house -- period. And if you do want in my house bring a sworn warrant. Corporations don't come in to my house unless I spend the money to bring them in.
And no, I do not drink soda.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Or perhaps you don't know what you're talking about, and just like using absolutist terms so you can feel superior.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I'm not sure if it's superiority I feel, but I feel really good about not drinking that crap. I prefer good water (and not bottled water).
And I do my best to inform people and to wean them off of that toxic shit and have made a good difference in a few people's lives.
yeh, so thanks. sort of.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)who gives a shit. Let it stand.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Congratulations, you're dead.
No really. Your brain can only consume glucose. Eat 0 sugar and you literally die. That's kinda odd behavior for a toxic substance.
Let's say you manage to eat enough sugar to keep your brain alive, and 5000 calories per day of fat and protein while laying around the house. Are you going to be thin? Fuck no.
Weight management is complex. There is no single magic bullet that can control it. Blaming it all on sugar will fail just like it failed when we blamed it all on fat in the 80s and 90s.
It's total calories consumed vs total calories expended. Your body doesn't give a damn if those calories are from sugar or not. And exercise is much, much, much, much, much, much more important than diet.
We need to stop talking up magic bullets if we're going to solve this. Because there aren't any magic bullets.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)if you eat at all, you are getting some sugar - you don't need PepsiCo as a dispenser of that need as mama nature has it pretty well dealt with.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)
madville
(7,412 posts)It is capable of converting proteins into glucose. Consuming sugars is not necessary.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Otherwise, we wouldn't have a complex glucose regulation system. It would be stupid for us to make glycogen in the liver if we could just convert protein to glucose.
In addition, there's no other creature that creates glucose from protein. So I'm gonna ask to see your references claiming such.
madville
(7,412 posts)Humans and a bunch of other animals do it, mainly takes place in the liver.
glu·co·ne·o·gen·e·sis (glk-n-jn-ss)
n.
The formation of glucose, especially by the liver, from noncarbohydrate sources, such as amino acids. Also called glyconeogenesis.
American Heritage Medical Dictionary
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Thank you
green for victory
(591 posts)"That depends on the meaning of the word pushing" --Bill Clinton
Why aren't more people concerned with this kind of "Pushing" by companies convicted of fraud and bribery (see: Eli Lilly)
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)leaps and bounds as pharmacorps pushes for more deregulation.
bloomberg's invested in them, but thinks people can't be trusted with a large soda.
beevul
(12,194 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)mainer
(12,022 posts)No one's saying you can't buy soda in one-ton quantities.
Just that, in a restaurant or fast-food establishment, you can no longer get 32-oz vats of it in a cup.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)People should be made aware of the risks, but if they want to drink soda it isn't mine or the State's business to them otherwise. They aren't harming anyone, but themselves with their actions (unlike with smoking.)
Whisp
(24,096 posts)There is nothing wrong with liking soda but PepsiCo and kind want to replace Water with soda.
They want everyone to have a pop instead of water - and why not, let the market decide! If they can convince the same kinds of people that believe in the guy with the red shoes today represents that other guy in the sky with the white beard to millions of people, then Pepsi has also convinced millions that their shit is better (and healthier too! that will be coming soon, no doubt) than clean water.
Tragic hilarity.
Bonduel
(96 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)It's that endless corporate propaganda tends to override common sense. And I'm astonished that so many DUers are happy to mindlessly parrot the lies they they've been spoon-fed & insist it's the TRUTH, but never even try to examine where that info comes from.
Fizzy sugar water isn't and shouldn't be held up as the symbol of individual freedom. And all Bloomburg is doing is regulating the size of the container - the morons who cry that they absolutely need to wallow in a half-gallon of soda can still get it with no problem. They just have to buy more than one cup.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Riiiiigghttt. It is also an essential part of the human diet. Tobacco...not so much if ever. You were doing good until that last sentence of gibberish.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I think a lot more needs to be done than banning sizes of soda. We can start by no longer subsidizing sugar. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-congress-should-repeal-sugar-subsidy
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)The libertarian paradise??!!
bunnies
(15,859 posts)if someone sees it fit to subsist on a diet entirely of peeps & gigantic sodas I say let 'em. Not my body. Not my choice.
randome
(34,845 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)imho, allowing a child a peeps & soda diet would be child abuse. But adults, I believe, should be trusted to make their own decisions.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)My argument with the size cap is there is nothing to encourage retailers to offer smaller sizes. I have the same complaint about ice cream cones. Bring back small portions. Please.
randome
(34,845 posts)The corporate need for over-consumption has ruled people's lives for too long.
OwnedByCats
(805 posts)drinks soda is fat
randome
(34,845 posts)OwnedByCats
(805 posts)saying. First it starts off like this. You can drink as much as you want, as long as you don't mind paying for each one instead of free refills or a big giant drink. But it can manifest into a ban. Not saying it will for sure, but the potential is always there. I dunno, I just don't like living in a nanny state. It's my choice if I want to eat or drink crap, it's also my choice if I choose not to. I actually just believe in moderation, that I chose for myself. I don't expect everyone else to do what I do. I believe everyone should be able to make their own decisions. I don't need Bloomberg or any other politician to hold my hand. Really I don't think Bloomberg gives a crap, he just wants more revenue for the city. Hey I wouldn't mind, except that I don't think any of NY, city or State spends our tax dollars wisely.
And I know no one said all people who drink soda are fat, that was just my smart ass reply to yours. lol
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)...sayeth the bunnies. 
TYY
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)why aren't stupid prohibitionist content enough let people lead their own lives
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)Personal choice is personal choice up to the point where others suffer for it. If I go hiking in a dangerous part of the country and am killed and eaten by a bear, that's my personal stupidity. If I go hiking, get lost and call for a helicopter rescue, now my stupidity affects others.
The cost of smoking-related illnesses are not confined to the finances of the smokers in question. Even if they were, tobacco companies advertise to increase sales. It's not like cigarettes are just sitting on a shelf and a prospective smoker has to pick them up to figure out how they're used. There's an entire incentivization culture built around it.
Our food situation is even worse because we don't have to smoke but we do have to eat and our choices have become increasingly erroded. It becomes very difficult to eat in such a way that won't make you fat in this country. Obesity wasn't a problem generations ago and we ate plenty.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Saying sugar is a toxin equal to tobacco is unbelievably stupid.
Tobacco is full of carcinogens and lethal chemicals.
Christ on a crutch - the stupid is really rampant.
srican69
(1,426 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Sorry. No matter how many videos are made, your brain only lives on sugar.
srican69
(1,426 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)'cause it isn't.
Corn Syrup is 100% glucose. They convert roughly 1/2 of the glucose into fructose to make HFCS.
You know what's also 50% glucose and 50% fructose? Sucrose (aka "sugar"
.
So yeah, changing from HFCS to Sucrose will do.....nothing.
There are no magic bullets for fighting obesity. It's calories in versus calories burned. And exercise is infinitely more important than diet. Talking up single causes and magic bullets won't solve the problem. Just like the demonization of fat in the 80s and 90s didn't work.
srican69
(1,426 posts)50% frustose ( one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule) and is just as bad for you
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The most commonly used is 43% fructose. They go as high as 75%.
Again, you are still claiming obesity is caused by one magic bullet. It isn't. And once we stop pretending that there is a magic bullet we'll be much closer to solving the problem.
The things people post! ANYTHING in huge extreme amounts can be bad for you! Sugar? Um...kinda needed in the body.
Hey did you hear? SALT is a toxic evil sludge and so is potassium! Yep...evils I tells ya!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)they found no harm.
Turns out, our kidneys are really good at their job, and consuming salt doesn't increase blood pressure long-term.
alp227
(32,034 posts)Even fruits & veggies contain sugar! It's just the refined sugar like in candy etc. that brings up the concerns. I think framing the nutritional issues as sugar=toxic misrepresent the science and is just plain unconstructive.
Autumn
(45,108 posts)contaminated water and oceans, pollution, poverty and war. All of those things are toxic to humans. Then I might consider him being on the right side of history. Banning what adults chose to drink is just stupid.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)well, he said he did, so it must be true. 
still_one
(92,227 posts)SoCalNative
(4,613 posts)it's sweetened with high fructose corn syrup.
BIG difference.
Autumn
(45,108 posts)
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I'm sure it's just as bad for you as regular Mountain Dew, but it tastes better.
B2G
(9,766 posts)Please sir, may I have another?
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Which faction does this represent on the left? Progressives, Liberals, Neoliberals, Statists? I mean seriously, we rail against government intrusion into our bedroom and our bodies but welcome them in to so many other things. Wth? does liberal even mean liberal anymore? I say it still does, I cast a suspicious eye at so called progressives. I think there is a difference and I believe they are much more comfortable with nanny statism. IMO
B2G
(9,766 posts)Whatever happened to 'my body, my choice'?
Amazing really.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)No seltbelt laws, no helmet laws, and do not think for me about how much soda to drink.
No.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)You is gullible ain't you!
srican69
(1,426 posts)Sugar is at the root of many of our health problems.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Too many calories is the root of the problems you're worried about. It doesn't particularly matter if those calories come from sugar or fats or protein.
Stop looking for a single magic bullet. There isn't one.
And declaring sugar "toxic" demonstrates you have utterly no understanding of physiology.
srican69
(1,426 posts)used to trigger hunger and satiation signals to the brain ...
See more at
Fructose is metabolized in many places. Most of our cells can digest fructose.
All of the studies that claim fructose interferes with satiation use 100% fructose in their studies. Which isn't the situation when we eat food. Even HFCS is roughly 50% glucose 50% fructose.
If your argument about fructose was true, fruit would be terrible to eat - it's full of fructose. Instead, what are we supposed to eat in place of artificial sweets? Fruit. Golly, maybe fructose isn't the demon that some people want to create.
Again, there is not one magic bullet.
srican69
(1,426 posts)which delays absorption among other things ...
The problem in our society is that so much of our food today is so refined and devoid of fibre. That along with the explosion in the amount of sugar we eat compared to our ancestors should give us a lot of pause. That is all I am trying to say.
We need to find a way to put the genie back into the bottle.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Fiber is no more the magic bullet than sugar, or HFCS, or fat, or protein.
Again, it's calories in versus calories burned. Doesn't really matter where those calories come from. And exercise is still much, much, much more important than diet.
People keep proposing magic bullets in a desperate attempt to make obesity an easy problem to solve. It's a lot easier to not eat <x> instead of paying attention to everything you eat and spending time on a treadmill.
But there is no magic bullet to solve the problem. It takes paying attention to everything you eat and significant exercise.
Peter cotton
(380 posts)“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
---Robert Heinlein
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)I think some cannot grasp LIMITED GOVERNMENT, often conflating it with the right wing meme of small government.
In our system the government has only the authority granted to it by the people. In order to accrue new powers, they must be enumerated. Government really has no right to dictate what substances and how much we put into our bodies.
Yes, freedom means, in part, that we have the right to make less than optimal decisions. Call it fredumb all you want but it is the nature of true self determination. It sure as hell doesn't mean the ability to only make the best choices or there would be no choice still. We are not a collective of drones, we must live with each other's choices and respect them even if they are not the ones we think of as wise.
Whats_that
(33 posts)Then everyone is too dumb to know what's good for them and in desperate need of a daddy figure to tell them what they can and can't do.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I wouldn't touch him with a telephone pole
Whats_that
(33 posts)He can go fuck himself...
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)But that being said sugar in some quantity is necessary to the body. Yes drinking to much soda is bad for you and I don't think there's a person alive who thinks otherwise. But banning things really isn't gonna make a difference I mean look at prohibition that increased alcohol consumption. The problem we have is education when I was growing up I was taught moderation today's society doesn't teach it we live in a society of instant and abundant gratification. We have to change the culture to truly change things and the way to do that is education not banning things.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)should we regulate bacon?
Seriously, where does it stop?
OwnedByCats
(805 posts)They'll soon ban anything remotely bad for you
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)OwnedByCats
(805 posts)meddling is still the "in" thing. Maybe they'll ration soda and Oreos, if they're nice.
Jon Ace
(243 posts)I mean it worked for tobacco. Right?
jonthebru
(1,034 posts)One thing I see where I live is everybody is trying to lose weight. Even a skinny person can suffer negative effects from sugar and HFCS.
It's not about some mayor banning big drinks its about our national health. Sugar is bad for anyone, it is addictive and it's use jepardizes our health.
mainer
(12,022 posts)He just banned the sales of single-serving drinks over a certain size. You are always free to buy two smaller drinks. Or a hundred smaller drinks.
It's because super-sizing (as Mcdonald's found out) results in people wanting to finish the whole serving. Bloomberg is just against super-sizing.
green for victory
(591 posts)Can we stop drone bombing children in Pakistan and Yemen before some uber rich people start telling us what to do to "save lives"?
"He just banned the sales of single-serving drinks"
My signature for your consideration:
"Corruptisima republica plurimae leges" --Tacitus
Response to mainer (Reply #71)
mainer This message was self-deleted by its author.
mokawanis
(4,443 posts)I can buy two smaller sodas, or 50. I can also stop at the grocery store on the way home and buy gallons of the stuff.
I would think Bloomberg would have bigger issues to occupy his time and attention. He's being as ass about soda, and an ineffective ass at that.
av8r1998
(265 posts)"Homosexuality is a sin.... so ban it"
"Abortion is a sin... ban it"
Divorce .... sinful, and don't get me started on prostitution, drugs, adultery, and the myriad of other "behavioral crimes" that are "sinful", and authoritarians like Mike Bloomberg feel compelled to save us from ourselves.
(He picks his battles BTW... don't really know what his real thoughts on any of the above are.... I just know that when Emperor Mike sees something as "bad" he feels compelled to legislate it away)
If he wants to reduce soda consumption he should pump some of his billions into PSA's or even into buying a soda company that is "health conscious". We'll see how well THAT sells.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Of course, it's one day at a time losing weight and it takes a lifetime change of lifestyle.
125 pounds since May of last year and 16 inches.
Wish the prior 11 years someone had said NO or did a tsk tsk while I was at the movies
ordering the extra large soda and extra large popcorn smothered in artificial butter
THEN going and asking for a refill
48 ounces is 780 calories
refil bring it to 1560
I thank Mayor Bloomberg and a few others (including Chris Christie) for "slapping me silly" and getting me to see the light. Because I could NOT do it alone.
And there is no shame in getting help at any addiction, and sugar is an addiction.
NOONE needs to have 1560 calories in one meal or one 90 minute movie.
BESIDES-SODA GOES FLAT QUICKLY and tastes like shit that way.
And now I can actually FIT in the seat in the movie theatre and enjoy the film
(though I would enjoy it more if I wasn't damn worried about someone coming in and shooting up the place).
Same as cigarettes are banned in 99% of everything in NYC, and THANK GOD AND BLOOMBERG for that.
People can jump off a bridge too, and people try to save them.
Obesity is a national tragedy, and costs millions of dollars to people a year collectively.
WELLNESS for life.
one day at a time
And obesity only hurts yourself and in later years, all the ones who love you.
So you are not free to do as you please if one has those who love them.
(As Kristofferson(c) wrote, Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"
and you have someone or something to live for, you are not free to kill yourself and think no one else is affected, to make some silly political point that makes one sound like a libertarian
in the first place.
(No one would go 120 mph on the streets of NYC.
No one should drink 1560 calories in 90 minutes.
Eventually everyone seeks help from someone.
Best it not come in the hospital.
And those that refuse to seek help, oddly enough, need help the most.
imho.
and it has nothing to do with taking away anyones rights.
obesity is bi-partisan.
Why wish that on a school kid?
It would have been so much easier for me had I had this whole wellness plan many decades ago, but especially the last one.
I want to stick around to see Hillary's two terms, Michelles two terms, and many other democratic presidents after them.
(Let alone all the personal stuff I want to see).
Wellness rules.
Thank you Mike Bloomberg, and I understand why the gun people lead the way in hating you.
Looking for a fat free, and gun free America. 90% of Americans used to smoke, now 90% don't.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)Not surprised one bit.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I love when someone puts down wellness and thinks they are above it all
(no one specific here and not saying your one line reply does that, as it is a mystery as to what the one line means anyhow).
and talk about freedom and liberty while in actuality, though they don't see it,
they are beholden to an addiction meaning they are not actually free.
they may say damn the corporation while lighting up in defiance a cigarette
and damn the big corporations while guzzling down addictive stuff and making the big company rich
and damn the politicians who want to do something about guns in the streets
then in defiance shoot themselves in the toes accidentally
freedom's just another word for NOTHING at all.
because when one is dead from their addictions, they are free, but there is nothing.
And food is an addiction as is guns, cigarettes, drugs gambling and anything else.
And most people once they realize they are addicted, treasure any help they can get
and take it one day at a time.
I would rather now be exercising for 90 minutes a day and while doing so eating ZERO and drinking only a sip or two of water, than be guzzling 1560 calories in the 90 minute movie.
of course, everyone is free to make a choice
(again this is just a generalization, not meant to anyone specific).
whatever not surprised one bit means in your response.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Freedom means not having people like yourself or mayor 1 percent, defining for everyone else, what "vice" means.
"freedom and liberty" means living ones own life and making ones own choices as they see fit, with nothing more than simple and reasonable rules that limit ones freedom of choice in only ways that are necessary, and it also means not having people like yourself or mayor 1 percent decide what the definition of "necessary" is.
What you don't seem to get about people in general - and this may be more of an American thing though I can't say for sure - is that people have a general tendency, when confronted by someone looking to force his or her will upon another individual or a group or even a populace of others, to say "fuck you, it isn't your place to do that" - with little thought to whether that person is right or wrong outside the issue of being an authoritarian asshole.
To a great many people, authoritarian assholes are a much larger problem than obesity or any other "vice" you can name.
I'm probably just wasting my time though, since you thought "stop and frisk" was just fine and dandy. "Meek mayor mike" ("I've got my own army" knows best, right?
Which would you choose:
A life where authoritarians told you how to live
or
A life where you were free from all but the most objectively necessary interference, and free to make choices, even bad ones.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and if you look at HIS meaning, he agrees with me.
Freedom is doing what one wants regardless of anything else
Having a family though or friends, or responsiblity means one is tied to other's wants and needs, and one is not free to do reckless things as it directly reflects others freedoms and libertys.
to use my own case, I have a family and kids.
I could have continued on the binge course I was one and dropped dead.
Therefore creating pain and sorrow and hardship.
NO freedom is not being reckless.
Freedom is thinking of others and putting the others before oneself
Freedom is not wanting kids/grandkids to be so fat that they have childhood diseases and never reach adulthood.
Obesity is as bad as any addiction
And when someone realizes it and someone is there to help, one thanks their lucky stars that person is there to help them, one day at a time.
And my personal addictions were ironically enough Coke and Cheese.
And eating and drinking endlessly thousands of calories of both a day was making me beholden to both of them.
BTW-here's a great song, one of my favorite.
While I am not an alchoholic, I am a cheese and coke cola addict (and that is not satire).
Took me alot of years to stand up and admit it.
Now I have my freedom. Free from that.
And I thank people like Mike Bloomberg.(and indirectly Chris Christie, seeing him was like a mirror. And less than a year ago, seeing the two together for some event put things in perfect context.
And I thank Ryan Shafer too, whether he knows it or not, he was a major inspiration.Though I am thankful to not have diabetes or even prediabetes, there but for some sort of luck, those numbers were never bad for me. But about a year ago, watched something and what an inspiration he is and it resonated.
(btw, your using the NRA soundbytes on Mr. Bloomberg show me all I need to know. It shows me the issue of wellness is not the one you are arguing. It shows me you are arguing some other issues of the Mayor of NY, most not even correct, but all 100% irrelevant to this.)
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="
reminds me that friends don't let friends drive drunk.
Even if it means taking a persons freedom to drive away.
Or friends helping someone in a cult get out of it, because a person can't do it themselves.
Freedom means having great friends and support groups.
Because if one is dead, one has ZERO freedom at all.
Someone who is drunk might rail and say, you authoritarian, give me my keys and then get into a head on collision with a bus and kill 50 people.
And taking those 50 people's freedoms away.
BTW, your line about stop and frisk is 100% lie.
Have a great day. Days are so much better for me now.All that energy, and it don't come from sugar highs.
One day at a time. Used to be something I thought was corny.
Now I see the light and say it often.
btw, it's 5am, off to the club. See you in a few hours.
(in the past I probably already would have had 3 20 ounce real soda.)
Now all I have had so far is a glass of water.
Bucky
(54,027 posts)
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Should Clarence the angel just have let him jump?
Or should Jimmy have been happy Clarence stopped him?
One knows who their friends are in the hour of need.
And if Jimmy just jumped, he really would have screwed Clarence, who was relying on him.
So Jimmy was not alone and free to do it, right?
Or as Tom T. Hall so famously sang
"Old dogs and children and watermelon wine"
c)
about supposed friends that are just not there when one needs them the most
Remember mash's theme song?
Well, that theme song was NOT meant to be taken literally.
It was written as irony.
Because, NO it is not.
Not for the person, not for any friend, family, or if one works, any coworker.
And not for the person who daily sees someone and is comforted, even not knowing the persons name, but they are on the 810bus or train, or at the 7-11, and one day
that person is not there, becuase well, that person might have had to have a big gulp at the same 7-11.
BTW-ever notice at the 7-11 that the hot meals they serve are really, really tiny?
The hotdogs and chili dogs and other crap people eat, are like mini.
Same with their pizza.
Why is it that they serve BIGGGGGGGGGGGGG cups of soda
and teeny tiny food?
green for victory
(591 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I'm glad you lost weight and I congratulate you, but just because you can not control your surgar intake, doesn't mean we need to regulate everybody's intake.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I thought Chuck heston was an idiot and his acting worse than Reagan's.
Though Charlie's overacting was a helleva lot funnier than Seth's bombing at the Oscars
Michael Moore showed Chuckie for the idiot he was.
Don't you agree?
so I for one wouldn't use Chuckie's signature line
but you are free as this is America and Mike Bloomberg is a true democratic liberal
Or one could say Regular Soda is Soylent Green.
And wellness is a social issue, therefore a republican/tea/libertarian would have nothing to do with wellness, correct?
I think Adlai vs. the 1stReaganlike Ike was the true showing.
It's like lighting a cigarette in defiance.
And then watching a tv ad where a person is smoking through a hole in their throat.
Real cool isn't it?
Great method of protest dontchathink?
Or a few decades ago, watching a Yul Brynner commercial.
Who you might ask?
youtube it and see.
He could have danced all night (until he died of lung cancer).
Wellness rules.
Anyone who doesn't like the cost of health care should now be into wellness.
Wish they advocated wellness in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s but it was few and far between.
As Franklin said "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".
Give a person a 48 ounce soda and he will guzzle it down
Give a person a 24 ounce soda and he saves 390 calories right there
Drink a diet soda and one saves 780 calories.
Drink a glass or bottle of water and it actually refreshes much better.
If one needs caffeine, a small piece of dark chocolate is healthy and does the trick.(small being the word).
Think of a car and a radiator flush
The body is like that
Which is why they have always said 8 glasses of water a day at least flushes the entire system out.
BTW, you know a president who was known for wellness?
It was JFK and his council on fitness.
Mike Bloomberg is a continuation of what JFK did back in the 1960s.
Did you know that, in the midst of everyone calling Mike Bloomberg one name after another, JFK did the very same thing?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I don't think Marijuana is healthy, so I suppose we should be for banning that as well? Personally, even if its bad for you, I don't have any problem with an adult smoking it.
For the record, I don't drink any pop, because I don't think its good for my health. But that doesn't mean I want to restrict other peoples choices. (and from the looks of it about 75% of people on DU agree with me.)
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Just because some are more vocal, others might not wish to expend capital on this issue
Others might not want to involve themselves in this very thread
Others might be on other threads
And DU has thousands of members.
Most members do not read every single post, as its impossible to do so on such a tremendous board.
So, the ratio MIGHT be accurate for this thread or some others, but that is not necessarily a correct Nate Silver like poll.(for lack of a better poll taker these days).
(and if one takes Mike's name out of it (as he is hated by any of the gunslingers, so anytime his name is mentioned, some gunslingers come running to rail against him personally),
I would suggest in a correctly worded question, (and not with loaded words), the ratio
would reverse to 75% against 48 ounce glasses.
BTW, no one thought a pedestrian mall from 42 to 47th street on Broadway in midtown manhatan would ever happen and be accepted by both drivers and NYers.
And everyone now loves it.
Same with bike lanes
So wellness has been a longtime goal of Mike's. Nothing new. And nothing evil.
NO ulterior motives except for wellness (and guns are a wellness issue also).
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Ten Studies Showing the Link Between Sugar and Increased Cancer Risk
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/024827_cancer_sugar_women.html#ixzz2METEOKRi
richmwill
(1,326 posts)...People LOVE being told what they can eat, drink, etc. They also just love being taxed higher on products they enjoy consuming. Yeah, sure- your ways will have the public soooo appreciative towards whatever party endorses them. Really. They love being told "We know better than you do, so you can't do it your way anymore". You can believe that if you wish.
alc
(1,151 posts)I bet most of us eat many things a day that are more dangerous than sugar. And we participate in activities that are more dangerous. And we don't participate in things that will lead to worse problems than sugar (i.e. eating veggies, exercise, and medical checkups). If the government can control sugar, I'd argue they can (and should) control anything that's worse. Either by limiting how much we do or requiring more.
What is the proper role of government in making these decisions about our lives? We need to start there, not with a specific example. Maybe the proper role is to send individuals to a special health spa (or health jail) if they are under/over a certain weight. Or maybe it's to set upper limits on sugar/day and lower limits on lima beans/day that we must consume.
If you want to focus on one item at a time rather than the proper role, answer these questions. What is after sugar? And after that? And when does the government stop trying to control our lives for our own good? Or when do we finally say enough if the government doesn't see a limit?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)green for victory
(591 posts)now that "Health Insurance" is a national priority of the 2 controlling parties (second only to the MIC of course) there is no stopping this train...it has left the station. The conductor will be along any minute for your ticket.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)If a person drinks several sodas a day, eats sweets and other products containing HFCS (a lot of foods do that are NOT sweet), then of course they will have health issues.
mainer
(12,022 posts)You can drink all the soda you want. You just have to buy a second cup.
It's hardly a limit on your freedoms, people.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)First of all, what gives the mayor-- of any city-- the right to unilaterally issue an edict that limits the size of a soft drink one may order in a restaurant? Although he may think he is, Bloomberg is not the freaking dictator of New York City.
Second of all, what difference does it make if someone orders two 16-ounce drinks or one 32-ounce drink? It's still 32 ounces.
It's a stupid regulation.
mainer
(12,022 posts)As McDonald's discovered, when their french fry orders were small, people ate the whole thing, but they'd order just one. When McDonald's started super-sizing french fry packets, people would still eat the whole thing. Psychologically, we are programmed to finish our plates and drain our drinks. Make it bigger, and we eat more.
That's the basis behind limiting portion size. You can always order two drinks, but the chances are good you'll be satisfied with a single, smaller serving. It's a small step toward making us think about what we're eating.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)Why stop at sodas? want to ban cartons of cigarettes? I'm sure smokers would have a major problem with it. But to heck with them, right? Why should they get any say at all? We know what's best for them. Force people to think about how much they smoke. Why should we have to convince people do anything when we can force it on them?
Sex? Limit unmarried people to 3 sexual encounters per year to slow down spreads of STDs and unplanned pregnancy.
Fatty foods? Put everyone on a diet, whether they like it or not. Anyone that resists will be fined/imprisoned.
Dangerous sports will be banned. We want to force people to stay safe.
In the end, everything pleasurable that is the least bit bad for you will be limited, regulated, banned, or made socially unacceptable.
Again, I ask how far do you want to take this? Because there is always someone else that wants to take it farther. And that person will find the power to do it.
Pancho Schneider
(42 posts)Soda should not be banned but should not contain extreme amounts of sugar and calories, in my view.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)[img]
[/img]
In The Wind
[img]
[/img]
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)OwnedByCats
(805 posts)Why don't we get rid of all these food additives? You think all that crap is good for you? They want to limit the sale of soda in restaurants but allow HFCS to continue to be put in these drinks? GMAB! Put real sugar back in products and get rid of all the chemicals they poison us with.
If we went back to before we added all this crap in the food maybe we'd be healthier.
And if you think you're going to make even the slightest dent in obesity by not selling over 16 oz PER serving (I haven't read about limits on servings yet), you're sadly mistaken. This is like saying you can get an ounce of crack at this pharmacy, but the one down the road will sell you any quantity you want. So while I can go to a restaurant, I pay for 16 oz and because I never need more than that during a meal, I'm ok with 16 oz. If I want another 16 oz, I can buy it. But then I leave the restaurant, stop at the local grocery store and buy half a dozen 2 liter bottles to drink as quickly or as slow as I want.
This will not make any difference to obesity rates, it's not being banned. This is just a fat tax, nothing more. It's just a way to tax you more in the guise of the product being bad for you. You think Bloomberg gives a shit about your health? LOL
It's the nanny state who really doesn't care about you, they want more of your money.
If the politicians cared, a company like Monsanto would not exist anymore.
I'm not saying soda is not bad for you. However with moderate use it's no worse than the huge list of other things that are bad for you. You gonna limit or ban all that stuff too?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)mainer
(12,022 posts)It's not being banned.
32-oz chocolate bunnies, by the way, aren't usually consumed in one sitting.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)The lines to the movie restrooms would be longer than the film's length.
But your point about "not being banned" simply shows the officiousness of Bloomberg's edict.
mainer
(12,022 posts)I can't see a reason for anyone complaining if they throw away half the drink anyway.
The problem is, they DO drink it.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)It is dangerous precisely because it is ineffective for its purported purpose.
So what is its real purpose?
the horror!
LOL
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)OwnedByCats
(805 posts)I know, I just thought it was funny lol
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Say a family or group of people (business luncheon?) goes to a pizza restaurant. Each person will now have each order their own cup of soda? Usually, buying individual glasses of soda is more expensive than buying a pitcher or bottle when there are a group of people. Having been to many business luncheons and corporate Christmas parties in Manhattan, pitchers of soda, and beer and wine, were bought and put on each table for the employees. What about large group private parties?
Edit: I don't really like soda. It fills me up and I can't finish my meal. I just ask for a cup of water. When a meal includes soda with it, my husband drinks my soda besides his. How does Bloomberg stop something like this from happening?
mainer
(12,022 posts)That's a true infringement of your rights. It MAKES you do something that ultimately saves lives and health care costs. Why aren't you up in arms about that?
Mopar151
(9,989 posts)
Purplehazed
(179 posts)The seat belt law appears pretty innocuous on the surface.
But now that states have expanded the seat belt law to be used as a primary enforcement tool, the police can pull you over at any time because "it didn't appear that" the driver was wearing their seat belt. Profiling and harassment hide under the cover of the seat belt law. And let's not forget the Insurance companies that backed the law, profit from the surcharges and and hiked fees for seatbelt violators.
The soda debate is not about the right to a Big-Gulp, but about another incremental intrusion by government into the average persons life. Superficially the law itself seems tame. What will happen as it is implemented? How will enforcement be? Will the soda squad be able to pull surprise inspections? Will they be testing beer pitchers for traces of corn syrup? Will the police be pulling over Domino's drivers and search the car for the hidden 2 litre bottle? Will operating permits be jeopardized?
Every law takes on an ever expansive life of it's own.
green for victory
(591 posts)and their ever more "helpful" laws
Purplehazed above nails it.
If someone like blooomie scrutinizes your life who knows what he will come up with "for your own good".
Dara has a message for Bloomie and anyone else that wants to tell everyone else what to do:
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,415 posts)I feel like it's a bit heavy handed for government to actually step in and push initiatives that eliminate certain food choices, sizes, etc. Sure, we don't want food that's (literally) laced with poisons, bacteria, and other harmful things that can actually do severe damage to our bodies (and in much shorter order) and I want government to be there making sure that businesses don't put unsafe food out on the market just so that they can make a quick buck. I would prefer that, as far as unhealthy (but non-lethal) food choices go, I'd rather that government focus on providing us with research and information that help us make informed choices about our diets, as well as help ensure that healthy alternatives are always available. I don't agree with the government arbitrarily taking dietary choices away from us, however well-intentioned it may be.
johnlucas
(1,250 posts)FDA is useless!
They allow so much crap on the market & we wonder why there's so much cancer & other illnesses from these carcinogens they let through.
People have a right to live "healthy" or "non-healthy" so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others when they do it.
You have a brain & you can make a choice.
Government's job is to stop businesses from putting inherently detrimental products on the market to be chosen from.
Direct poisons.
But if you do ANYTHING in excess it can become poisonous to the body.
That doesn't make it inherently detrimental.
Even water can poison you if you drink too much of it.
Sugar is natural & is not a direct poison.
So making a big deal about some serving sizes of soda which contains a form of sugar is just grandstanding.
Makes me wonder if Bloomberg did it on behalf of some business interests who were threatened by certain vendors.
I don't live in New York so I don't know the details.
It damn sure ain't for health purposes.
John Lucas
alp227
(32,034 posts)if "my body my choice" is to be respected throughout the law? For example my state bans alcohol sales between hours of 2-6am. I think laws like the NYC soda size curb exist elsewhere in some form.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,415 posts)I think that there is a discernible difference, don't you? 
Know anybody who has died and/or killed others while driving under the influence of Soda in the middle of the night?
mainer
(12,022 posts)where an 8-oz serving of soda is the norm (even their bottles and cans are smaller), I find it pretty hilarious that Americans are up in arms about someone taking away their 32-oz soda servings. This is what symbolizes American freedom, I guess.
Then again, Europeans have true freedom from worry about their health care.
I guess we know which freedom Americans really care about.
Ter
(4,281 posts)Sugar is better than artificial sweeteners anyway.
Ter
(4,281 posts)
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 1, 2013, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)
As I read through your OP, and all the responses herein above, I wondered:
What if Bloomberg pushed this agenda in order to create the controversy that motivates dialogs like this, AND facilitates awareness of the risks associated with consumption of refined sugar?
Like another DUer upthread, I've spent a lifetime combating obesity and poor eating habits. For the first half of my adult life, medical professionals almost never addressed my health as it related to nutrition. I was told to push away from the table (duh, why didn't I think of that?!?), exercise and go on a (the dreaded 'D' word) diet.
For more than twenty years, I tried every diet I could afford, to no avail.
Then, I read Sugar Blues by William Dufty and I had an Epiphany! Here was someone writing about something I ate in terms of the consequences of said consumption. It was my first step in recognizing that my body doesn't tolerate sugar at all. Luckily, I had "taken steps" that put me among people who understood, and one of them observed that all of our bodies are different -- what works for one person might not work for the next.
Still, the biggest gift Sugar Blues gave me is the awareness that it is inadvisable to eat everything presented by the corporate food manufacturers as safe and nutritious.
Now, I know what works for me. I no longer eat sugar or hydrogenated oils. Yesterday marked my first year as a Vegan. All of my current eating habits have been shaped by research -- and by dialogs like this one. Like others upthread, I am strongly in favor of disseminating information about sugar, hydrogenated oils, GMOs, and the host of other victuals with which corporate megalomaniacs keep us addicted, sedated, and unhealthy.
libodem
(19,288 posts)All extra calories no nutrition. No protein, no vitamins, no minerals. Zero.
But high fructose corn syrup is poison to the body. That's what most soda pop has in it. The body doesn't recognise corn syrup as a real sugar, so the pancrease does not make insulin to manage taking the sugar into the cells for use.
Corn syrup free floats in the blood stream until it is burned or it is laid down as yellow belly fat to later.
It is poison!!!
Mopar151
(9,989 posts)That's what it does... Complex carbs are better for you, but they are still carbs, and you still need them. Your liver will make sugar from fat if you really need it, but the process (aceoketosis) is hard on the liver, and has some toxic side effects (production of acetone, aka paint thinner).
Balance, moderation, and portion control are FAR more effective means of assuring a healthy diet than phobic fear of one food component.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Yeah, a bowl of oatmeal will sustain a plateau rather than a spike, like when one eats a Mars bar. The sugar tends to raise straight up then plummet straight down, leaving one tired and looking for another way to jump the BG back up.
There has been a sustained campaign to promote high fructose corn syrup as the same as 'sugar', but it is not the same. It is worse.
PS, just cuz you may not like what I have to say, you don't have to be crappy to me. No more metaphorical middle finger, or I'll alert. Just sayin'.
Mopar151
(9,989 posts)mainer
(12,022 posts)Just like we need 10,000 calories a day to keep from starving?
Mopar151
(9,989 posts)Without knowing my circumstances, or metabolisim, it's just dumb. As is setting a serving size based on carbonation, without consideration of sugar content, if you truly need to control sugar.
Mopar151
(9,989 posts)Every morning at break - and the guy looked like Bubba Smith on "Storage Wars Texas". The thing is - regulation of one part of the diet will NOT solve diet problems. A can of Bar-B-Q Pringles and 2 Diet Cokes or my 1 Pepsi with ice and a roast beef sandwich - who's gonna have some gas left in the tank in 3 hours? How are their A1C's gonna look?
Dpm12
(512 posts)the govt's right to tell us what we can and cannot drink. If someone wants to get a large soda, let them. It's a free country
Silent3
(15,234 posts)That article, however, is a good example of bad science reporting.
The actual study in question says nothing at all about sugar being "toxic", despite the exaggerated, melodramatic second-hand rewording of the study by author Mark Bittman.
The study shows that an excess of sugar in the diet corresponds to an increased risk of diabetes. The study also show how the increased risk of diabetes is specific to sugar since weight gained in a low-sugar diet doesn't carry the same diabetic risk.
Isn't that bad enough? Isn't that enough to warn people to pay attention to the sugar content in their diet, without the hyperbole?
This is how obnoxious memes get started and propagated. The first line of the article will be what people remember and repeat like a mantra. The more reasoned and moderate corrections in the comments that follow the article will have minimal impact.
