Nyc Mayor Aims To Ban Super Sized Sodas And Sugary Drinks.

[Ouroboros]

I drink 1 to 2 sodas a day, but it's always diet. The only liquid calorie form that enters my body besides skim milk is liquid courage.

And diet soda is also extremely bad for you. Higher risk of stroke and heart attack: http://www.msnbc.msn...e-heart-attack/

 

And also, strangely enough, diet soda is also related to obesity and diabetes: http://www.weightlosssurgerychannel.com/breaking-wls-news/diet-sodas-linked-to-increased-obesity-diabetes.html/

[Ouroboros]

Also, there's one more thing, the reason why corn syrup is so cheap are ...

 

$3,975,606,299 reasons--in tax money--going as subsidies to corn farmers (2009 number).

 

We are already paying to make soda cheap and accessible for all.

 

Here's a solution. Remove the subsidies. Spend less government money (taxes), and sodas will be more expensive (and other HFCS products), and it will be used less, and we can eat healthier food.

[Yrth]

Cardiologist and author of Wheat Belly Dr. William Davis points out that two slices of whole grain wheat bread have the same impact on blood sugar as a can of soda or a snickers bar.

I laughed reflexively the first time someone told me that whole wheat was unhealthy. I don't actually think it's funny, but it is still rather unbelievable. What makes you think this isn't another diet-conspiracy-theory, such as The Atkins Diet?

[FeelHappy]

I rarely drink sodas, i'd rather save my liquid calorie intake for something better like beer.

 

Anyways, this isn't completely insane, I think a 64oz big gulp has something like 800 calories in it and its all simple sugars. I know it sucks, but sometimes people need to limit their intake and its pretty apparent that the majority of people have trouble doing it. On the other hand with so many unhealthy foods is this really going to be very effective.

[Ouroboros]

Cardiologist and author of Wheat Belly Dr. William Davis points out that two slices of whole grain wheat bread have the same impact on blood sugar as a can of soda or a snickers bar.

I laughed reflexively the first time someone told me that whole wheat was unhealthy. I don't actually think it's funny, but it is still rather unbelievable. What makes you think this isn't another diet-conspiracy-theory, such as The Atkins Diet?

He's not the only one.

 

It doesn't say it's "unhealthy". What you're reading is "impact on blood sugar" = "unhealthy." We need calories. But the problem is that we're eating more and more low nutrient food with high calories. Wheat has been enhanced, just like corn. Wheat is healthy because of the fibers, not because of the maltose or gluten. It's all about moderation. Everything is unhealthy in the wrong proportions. Even water is dangerous in high consumption, and so is oxygen.

 

Do you know what celiac disease is and how it affects people? Some lose weight. Some gain weight. And where does gluten come from? Hint: not corn. We have a friend who was diagnosed earlier this year. Gluten allergy is very difficult to deal with. Almost all food we eat has been enhanced with gluten. (Even table salt has gluten in it now, because it keeps the grain separated or something like that.)

 

Here's a good example: http://www.glycemicindex.com/index.php

Type in "wheat" and compare it's glycemic index to say "corn". Wheat has a higher number... because the research says so.

[Vigile]

Am I the only person left in this country that:

 

1. Can't drink 32 oz. of any liquid that isn't water in less than a day, and

2. Doesn't like soda all that much, so only drinks it once or twice a month?

 

Seriously, when I go to a fast food place these days, I can't friggin' believe how friggin' gigantic a "medium" drink is. I can only drink a medium if it's unsweetened tea; that amount of soda or anything with sugar consumed in a day would leave me feeling ill.

 

Yeah, seriously, who are these people?

 

Last time I was in the US they asked me if I wanted a medium or large drink, and since I was thirsty, I asked for a large, forgetting I was in the US.

 

Unreal.

 

In Europe, a large is a small/medium (about 12oz) in the US and US large is what a family would share, but which doesn't exist. Super size. Fuggetaboutit.

[Vigile]

I drink 1 to 2 sodas a day, but it's always diet. The only liquid calorie form that enters my body besides skim milk is liquid courage.

 

You might want to look into studies that attribute diet soda to Alzheimers. I don't know if there is any serious validity, but I've seen a study or two that found correlations. My grandmother used to drink about two diet cokes a day and died from this disease. Again, just a heads up. Dunno if there is any cause for concern here.

[Vigile]

I don't like it. Legislation dealing with what politicians consider healthy behavior bugs me on a libertarian level; so does legislation limiting consumer choices. This law sucks both ways.

Amen to that.

 

Here's an article about why soda isn't Enemy #1 in the War on Obesity (I bet that's the next agency we'll see instituted): http://www.policymic...ause-of-obesity

 

Cardiologist and author of Wheat Belly Dr. William Davis points out that two slices of whole grain wheat bread have the same impact on blood sugar as a can of soda or a snickers bar.

 

Don't know what is, but something sure as hell is going on in the US and it's a relatively new phenomena. You just don't see obese people on the level that is common in the US elsewhere; ever. And when I was in high school, you didn't see it in the US either.

 

Common sights in the US would literally be circus sideshow acts elsewhere. No exaggeration. I'm sure you would agree with regard to Sweden.

 

I don't buy the argument that lifestyle could be the cause when the phenomena is so pervasive and so new.

[Vigile]

Also, there's one more thing, the reason why corn syrup is so cheap are ...

 

$3,975,606,299 reasons--in tax money--going as subsidies to corn farmers (2009 number).

 

We are already paying to make soda cheap and accessible for all.

 

Here's a solution. Remove the subsidies. Spend less government money (taxes), and sodas will be more expensive (and other HFCS products), and it will be used less, and we can eat healthier food.

 

So, just playing devil's advocate here. Since NYC can't address the lobby system in DC, isn't a law like this pretty much the only way a local community can attempt to regulate/strike back against an industry DC pols won't touch/are in the pocket's of?

 

It's a knee-jerk libertarian issue, but seems to me there is more to it here than loss of freedom and slippery slopes.

 

Before I'm labeled something ugly. This isn't an issue at the top of my priority list. I doubt it matters much either way.

[Ouroboros]

Don't know what is, but something sure as hell is going on in the US and it's a relatively new phenomena. You just don't see obese people on the level that is common in the US elsewhere; ever. And when I was in high school, you didn't see it in the US either.

True.

 

Common sights in the US would literally be circus sideshow acts elsewhere. No exaggeration. I'm sure you would agree with regard to Sweden.

Absolutely. Even though I can say that a lot of people in Sweden would be considered overweight, but not obese, by US standards. Everyone I know there over 40 have a belly. I think it's related to adaptation to the cold climate. Fat insulates...

 

I don't buy the argument that lifestyle could be the cause when the phenomena is so pervasive and so new.

No. But lifestyle changes can fix it. It's like driving your car and there's a pile of crashed cars in front of you. It wasn't your driving that caused it, but you can do something to avoid it. It's not fixed by outlawing car crashes.

[Yrth]

Cardiologist and author of Wheat Belly Dr. William Davis points out that two slices of whole grain wheat bread have the same impact on blood sugar as a can of soda or a snickers bar.

I laughed reflexively the first time someone told me that whole wheat was unhealthy. I don't actually think it's funny, but it is still rather unbelievable. What makes you think this isn't another diet-conspiracy-theory, such as The Atkins Diet?

He's not the only one.

 

It doesn't say it's "unhealthy". What you're reading is "impact on blood sugar" = "unhealthy." We need calories. But the problem is that we're eating more and more low nutrient food with high calories. Wheat has been enhanced, just like corn. Wheat is healthy because of the fibers, not because of the maltose or gluten. It's all about moderation. Everything is unhealthy in the wrong proportions. Even water is dangerous in high consumption, and so is oxygen.

 

Do you know what celiac disease is and how it affects people? Some lose weight. Some gain weight. And where does gluten come from? Hint: not corn. We have a friend who was diagnosed earlier this year. Gluten allergy is very difficult to deal with. Almost all food we eat has been enhanced with gluten. (Even table salt has gluten in it now, because it keeps the grain separated or something like that.)

 

Here's a good example: http://www.glycemicindex.com/index.php

Type in "wheat" and compare it's glycemic index to say "corn". Wheat has a higher number... because the research says so.

I accept your point about moderation, that's clearly true. (Were you saying that normal consumption of wheat creates a disproportionate diet? if you were, I missed it) But this person thinks all wheat is unhealthy, and that new genetically enhanced wheat is especially unhealthy. He wants you to cut all wheat from your diet. (see quote below). That would be the extraordinary claim requiring some extraordinary evidence, and since I heard about this theory (in November) I've simply taken the shortcut and thought 'Oh great, another crazy nutrition scheme.' I'm interested,* but skeptical.

 

Also I'm somewhat horrifically interested in how someone would replace the wheat in their diet.

 

From Amazon:

In Wheat Belly, Davis exposes the harmful effects of what is actually a product of genetic tinkering and agribusiness being sold to the

American public as “wheat”—and provides readers with a user-friendly, step-by-step plan to navigate a new, wheat-free lifestyle.

 

*Reading the negative amazon reviews, it appears that this is another low-carb diet. So, burden shifted back to new-and-extraordinary-diet book

[Vigile]

Absolutely. Even though I can say that a lot of people in Sweden would be considered overweight, but not obese, by US standards. Everyone I know there over 40 have a belly. I think it's related to adaptation to the cold climate. Fat insulates...

 

Yeah, it's the same in Russia. I think it's all the mayonnaise. But there's paunchy and then there's US fat. In 8 years I only saw one guy who was US fat (around 300lb) and people were tripping over themselves as they stopped, turned around and gawked at him. I felt sorry for the guy as it must be horrific to draw that much attention on a daily basis.

 

No. But lifestyle changes can fix it. It's like driving your car and there's a pile of crashed cars in front of you. It wasn't your driving that caused it, but you can do something to avoid it. It's not fixed by outlawing car crashes.

 

Agree. But there is still something there under the surface that we don't know/aren't being told. It would be nice to find out what it is before it spreads to the rest of the globe, where there are too people who could fix it with lifestyle, but will probably be victim to it nonetheless.

[Ouroboros]

So, just playing devil's advocate here. Since NYC can't address the lobby system in DC, isn't a law like this pretty much the only way a local community can attempt to regulate/strike back against an industry DC pols won't touch/are in the pocket's of?

 

It's a knee-jerk libertarian issue, but seems to me there is more to it here than loss of freedom and slippery slopes.

 

Before I'm labeled something ugly. This isn't an issue at the top of my priority list. I doubt it matters much either way.

Depends on if we're talking about fixing New York or US. NY isn't the only place with obesity, but if this law becomes popular, we'll see more of it in more places. We're paying to be obese, and then there will be taxes for paying for being obese.

 

My point is, it's not only sugar. Sugar is only one factor among many. Culturally, it's become accepted that you buy fast food and ready-made products instead of cooking it yourself. So it is a bit of lifestyle involved. And other things as well...

[OpheliaGinger]

I drink 1 to 2 sodas a day, but it's always diet. The only liquid calorie form that enters my body besides skim milk is liquid courage.

 

You might want to look into studies that attribute diet soda to Alzheimers. I don't know if there is any serious validity, but I've seen a study or two that found correlations. My grandmother used to drink about two diet cokes a day and died from this disease. Again, just a heads up. Dunno if there is any cause for concern here.

 

Instinctively, I think Alzheimer's is more hereditary based then the consumption of a diet soda (my grandfather had it and he wasn't a diet soda person and my aunt has the early onset symptoms and wasn't a diet soda person [my aunt is the daughter of my grandfather]).

[Vigile]

Depends on if we're talking about fixing New York or US

 

NYC only has jurisdiction over NYC. I was just saying that given their limitations, they are acting locally since they can't do anything about what they see as a wider problem outside of their jurisdiction.

 

At the end of the day, it's not like this is going to matter to anyone other than perhaps a few soft drink distributors and even they will figure out a way to protect their profit margins.

 

IOW, NYC is trying to create a perfect world through law. So is Alabama. They are both just doing it with different types of laws and there is little risk the types of laws will slide down a slippery slope into one another's community's.

[Kurari]

Frankly, I view the whole cult of the "obesity epidemic" as yet another manifestation of religion using the same tactics as the churches with much the same results.

 

They stress unnatural restrictions on human instincts and behaviors.

 

There is a system of "good" vs. "evil" when it comes to food.

 

The attitude about food and exercise is grossly puritanical in a "No Pain, No Gain" mentality.

 

Folks who do not look a certain way are ostracized and harassed by friends, family, and society in an effort to "help them see the light."

 

Folks are told they have to LOOK a certain way, eat a certain way, and exercise a certain way to gain happiness and health and there is no other alternative.

 

EVERYONE has the "right" way to do things, and it contradicts with everyone else's views. Put a Primal eater in with a vegan, and watch the fur fly.

 

 

The "Obesity Epidemic" is a 6 BILLION DOLLAR a year business for "fitness" gurus touting herbs, pills, exercise CD's, and diets that will be "The Way" to slimness and health.

 

The trick here is that obesity is never a whole problem in itself, but always a SYMPTOM of some other larger underlying issue that isn't being addressed. For example, someone eats to relieve the pain of past sexual abuse. In that case, it's pointless to put them on a diet and exercise plan but rather see to it that they get proper mental help...which many can ill-afford in this day and age, not to mention a lot of people cannot bear to relive those traumas enough to heal.

 

Fruits and vegetables are MUCH more expensive than a couple of hamburgers and a soda from a fast food joint.

 

Our farming practices in general are terrible with horrible standards for raising livestock and crops for the sake of production. If you want organic heritage crops, be expected to spend at least double of what you pay for that Tyson roaster with a side of Monsanto lettuce.

 

I could go on and on, but this is vid is just more babbling from the Cult of Obesity. It will do nothing, help nobody, and simply perpetuate more problems.

 

(BTW, I don't drink soda or eat at fast food restaurants except on rare occasions).

[Ouroboros]

I accept your point about moderation, that's clearly true. (Were you saying that normal consumption of wheat creates a disproportionate diet? if you were, I missed it) But this person thinks all wheat is unhealthy, and that new genetically enhanced wheat is especially unhealthy. He wants you to cut all wheat from your diet. (see quote below). That would be the extraordinary claim requiring some extraordinary evidence, and since I heard about this theory (in November) I've simply taken the shortcut and thought 'Oh great, another crazy nutrition scheme.' I'm interested,* but skeptical.

I agree on your points.

 

Also I'm somewhat horrifically interested in how someone would replace the wheat in their diet.

It takes a lot of work. That much I know.

 

*Reading the negative amazon reviews, it appears that this is another low-carb diet. So, burden shifted back to new-and-extraordinary-diet book

Agree. It was a mistake of me to quote him. But wheat still is high on maltose sugar and high glycemic index. Banning or limiting HFCS will only lead to more malt drinking. (Like others pointed out earlier. It will only shift the use to something else.)

[Ouroboros]

Instinctively, I think Alzheimer's is more hereditary based then the consumption of a diet soda (my grandfather had it and he wasn't a diet soda person and my aunt has the early onset symptoms and wasn't a diet soda person [my aunt is the daughter of my grandfather]).

Or it can be both. Like diabetes or obesity, heredity can be the underlying cause in some cases, but diet and lifestyle in others.

[Legion]

I can't believe....

 

1. That we are talking about health issues here.

2. That we are not talking about government overreach.

[Guest Valk0010]

I can't believe....

 

1. That we are talking about health issues here.

2. That we are not talking about government overreach.

I think, the government overreach arguement more or less amounts to this.

 

The government can't and shouldn't regulate personal freedom.

 

You really can't say much more then that. Your not going to fill 4 pages, saying that 15 different ways.

[Akheia]

I'll buy the government overreach idea once Washington stops being so utterly dominated by lobbyists and Big Pharma. As long as they're allowing those shitheads to run roughshod over our food supply and our health, it's nice that there might be some protections in place to prevent their completely destroying both. If overreaching is occurring, it's certainly not happening in the direction of protecting people but rather protecting corporate interests. I really don't see, even with the posts I've seen here, that the issue is preventing individual choice, but from keeping corporations from going too crazy at the expense of people's health. Nobody's stopping a citizen from drinking a gallon of soda if that's what she wants to do; what's stopping is potentially just the vendor not being able to sell her overly large cups of the goat piss. I guess it's hard for me to see it as an individual-liberty issue in that context.

 

That, and there are already controls like this on alcohol--where it can be sold, when, to whom, and how much at a time can be sold. Thoughts?

 

(Oh, and I lost 75 pounds on Atkins, just sayin', and my bloodwork went from "oh my god get a gurney" to perfect. My little sister lost 130 pounds on it, too. I don't think it was Atkins itself 100%; more likely what happend was I stopped eating processed shit and got serious about portion control.)

[Ouroboros]

That, and there are already controls like this on alcohol--where it can be sold, when, to whom, and how much at a time can be sold. Thoughts?

The same argument should be made for all food. The government should portion control our intake and diet to make sure we all eat right. It should give us a diet booklet that has to be filled out by a certified government professional, or perhaps have a little chip that constantly send the caloric information to Homeland Security.

 

Joking aside, the ban Bloomberg is suggesting is actually not limiting alcohol to the same level. You can drink pints or larger sized containers of beer than soda, if I understand his law right. (But I could be wrong)

 

(Oh, and I lost 75 pounds on Atkins, just sayin', and my bloodwork went from "oh my god get a gurney" to perfect. My little sister lost 130 pounds on it, too. I don't think it was Atkins itself 100%; more likely what happend was I stopped eating processed shit and got serious about portion control.)

You know there are some discussion about Atkins diet might cause colon cancer, right?

[mwc]

PS: Googling "studies about sugary sodas" pulled up a slew of articles damning them, including this one from a Harvard public health site that definitely seems to conclude that soda is linked to serious disease: http://www.hsph.harv...etes/index.html -- so there's one for you. Another: http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=15904276 . Another: http://abcnews.go.co...18#.T84PVr_hgnQ . Another: http://articles.lati...tudies-20120414 . Another: http://www.ajcn.org/...t/84/2/274.long . Another: http://www.reuters.c...E80B1WS20120112 . I'm not sure how much more you need to decide that sugary sodas are best treated as occasional snacks, but suspect if you need more, Google is your pal.

 

EDIT: I wrote a reply and now I'm replacing it.

 

If sugary drinks are as bad as ingesting lead then they should be banned outright for human consumption.

 

Is this your position?

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

If sugary drinks are as bad as ingesting lead then they should be banned outright for human consumption.

 

Is this your position?

I wonder too. If it's that dangerous, shouldn't it be outlawed like sassafras was and many other products in the past? (Sassafras can potentially give cancer if you consume a gallon a day of it for 80 years, so it was banned from food production in the 50's or so.)

 

Sugar is the new tobacco. Since smoking is more or less completely outlawed in NY, they need a new enemy.

(There's a word in sociology for this behavior, but I can't remember it at the moment, re-constitution maybe?)

[Akheia]

I think you're putting words into my mouth and don't appreciate it. I've said repeatedly that I don't think it's a good idea to demonize a particular foodstuff. I'm not willing to let you two bulldoze me into some absurd extremist black/white position just to make yourselves feel good. You are only alienating me by doing that, so can we stop, please? Maybe the removal of subsidies and laws that are overly friendly to food vendors might be a better approach than making a flat-out law, but I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out why it's so harmful to people to limit something like soda. I'm willing to change my mind if my premises are wrong--that's why we all deconverted, right? Here they are, and feel free to tell me why I'm wrong:

 

* The government has already demonstrated an overly lax hand in regulating the food service and production industries. Subsidies and a decided laissez-faire approach with regard to the (lack of) powers of the FDA have created an environment in which vendors can pretty much make anything they want and shove it into people's maws, and nobody'll say boo about it. Our constant battles with contamination, cruelty, and corner-cutting scandals seem like a signal mark of the US's inability to protect citizens from the abuses of the food industry. This chumminess has led to soda, of all the possible options, becoming the most profitable item a food vendor can sell.

 

* Sugary soda is a very unhealthy product to begin with--empty calories and a shit-ton of them, and the effects of that much sugar hitting the system all at once seem to be catastrophic for many people's metabolism. I've cited studies already that support that soda can have a seriously deleterious effect on human health but nobody's invalidated those yet. I know that correlation isn't causation, but the sheer number of correlations looks pretty damning.

 

* The proposed law seems to be more about limiting the excesses of food vendors than about telling people what they can or can't eat or drink. People are still perfectly free to go drink as much Coke as they want. I didn't happen to notice anything the proposal that would arrest people for carrying around their own gallon mugs.

 

* Soda is a potentially hazardous foodstuff, and other potentially hazardous foodstuffs already have rules governing their distribution. Would banning it outright be wise? Doubtful. We tried that with alcohol, which is another substance that, when overused and misused, can have a deleterious effect on the human body, and look how well that worked. I would never agree that a food ban on something that is only harmful when misused is a good idea. Hell, by that standard rhubarb should be banned, since its leaves are poisonous. I shy away from such a stark, black-and-white view. I guess I need to restate, yet again, that I don't think any food should be demonized. Soda's not good for you, but lots of things aren't. The problem isn't the soda itself, but that it's being served in ever-increasing sizes. And as long as soda is such a cheap profit leader for vendors, that won't be changing without some prodding.

 

So I'm having a lot of trouble seeing why it's a bad idea to tell vendors that they can't make huge servings of this shit anymore. I wouldn't set the limit as low as Bloomberg would, no, but if the serving sizes are the issue, why is it bad to encourage the end of the size-queen spiral soda's in?