blackpudd1n Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 ...How big is a SuperSize cup? I'd like to comment, but I'm not sure how big you guys are talking about so I can make a comparison to over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 The 7 eleven double gulp is the largest soda i have ever seen and its 64 fluid onces that in litres is 64 US fluid ounces = 1.89270589 litres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 If bans aren't a good idea, then what in hell can we do in the short term? One can hardly blame a little flailing. Why do we have to do something about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 The 7 eleven double gulp is the largest soda i have ever seen and its 64 fluid onces that in litres is 64 US fluid ounces = 1.89270589 litres Oh, wow, that's huge. I think a large drink at McDonald's over here would be no more than 800ml, which would be about 27 ounces. I went to the movies last night, and their large drinks are really big- my fiancee and I shared one, and still didn't manage to get through it all. I reckon at most it would have been about 1100ml, which would equate to 37 ounces approx. I don't think banning the larger cup sizes will do much good, myself, because from my Aussie point of view, the cup sizes are just a symptom of the American culture. When I think of America, I don't think 'land of the free', I think 'land of the big'. Everything seems so big in America, and Americans seem to like it that way. Big cars, big houses, big hair, big arses, big shopping centres, big churches, big corcorporations, big freeways and motorways... In a society of excess, I don't think putting a ban on the size of cups will achieve much. America subsidises farmers, yet demands other nations not do the same in the interest of free trade. If America were to decrease it's own subsidies to the farmers quite substantially, maybe it would be cheaper for people to eat healthier, and perhaps the American culture surrounding food consumption would change a bit as a result of imports of fresh food being more competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 2. Irrelevant. How much I make has no bearing on the affordability of the products I mentioned. They either are or are not affordable, especially relative to its junk food competition. I'm all ears to hear what junk food of a meal is more affordable. It is very much so relevant because not only are you accounting for the cost of food but for rent, utilities, school, general health, transportation, and other misc. bills. EBT only goes so far and when you are fighting against poverty where you are not guaranteed electricity to keep your fruits and vegetables fresh, you have to make the most of what you can get. That is why how much you earn at a job is of high relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Ophelia, we're not communicating. I gave you a clear example how you can eat heathy for under $2/ meal/adult (less for children). Please provide an example of what kind of junk food and at what cost someone who is low income would buy which costs less than that of my example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 You do realize why they buy that crap, right? It's cheap and it keeps them feeling full longer. If they actually bought the really healthy stuff they wouldn't have enough benefits at the end of the card to be able to feed their family and it would require them to return to the store more than once a month (eating up on gas) because the food either spoiled or didn't last the full month. Snickers and Mt Dew? They can buy top ramen and hamburger helper, which is cheap and keeps you feeling full. I don't see how removing pure sugary foods from the food stamp program would do anyone anything but good. I used to watch people buy entire shopping carts full of 2 liter pepsi bottles on food stamps. This was quite normal in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 ... It requires some forethought and actual cooking rather than just using the microwave, ... That's why American's are obese. They don't want to think about what to make or actual cook food. Just by starting to cook your own food, you'll begin a much healthier diet. Over time, you can start picking out the healthier ingredients as well. We don't like to go out anymore because our home cooked food is far superior than most restaurants (at least we think so). But it takes time, focus, and devotion (and some thought). Which is really too bad on several levels. Making food a focus in culture can actually add a great deal to quality of life. One of the few real pleasures we get out of life is enjoying good food given it directly affects one of our primary senses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Then I found some government review of the cookbook that criticized it for having recipes that were too complicated for its target audience. It specifically mentioned that most of its readers didn't know how to clean or prep raw onions and advised the cookbook writers to see if they couldn't dumb it down just a little more. After reading the comments on the Crefro Dollar arrest, I think the critic may have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Ophelia, we're not communicating. I gave you a clear example how you can eat heathy for under $2/ meal/adult (less for children). Please provide an example of what kind of junk food and at what cost someone who is low income would buy which costs less than that of my example? I did not say it was logical but here is an abstract from a study that says what I have been trying to say: Many health disparities in the United States are linked to inequalities in education and income. This review focuses on the relation between obesity and diet quality, dietary energy density, and energy costs. Evidence is provided to support the following points. First, the highest rates of obesity occur among population groups with the highest poverty rates and the least education. Second, there is an inverse relation between energy density (MJ/kg) and energy cost ($/MJ), such that energy-dense foods composed of refined grains, added sugars, or fats may represent the lowest-cost option to the consumer. Third, the high energy density and palatability of sweets and fats are associated with higher energy intakes, at least in clinical and laboratory studies. Fourth, poverty and food insecurity are associated with lower food expenditures, low fruit and vegetable consumption, and lower-quality diets. A reduction in diet costs in linear programming models leads to high-fat, energy-dense diets that are similar in composition to those consumed by low-income groups. Such diets are more affordable than are prudent diets based on lean meats, fish, fresh vegetables, and fruit. The association between poverty and obesity may be mediated, in part, by the low cost of energy-dense foods and may be reinforced by the high palatability of sugar and fat. This economic framework provides an explanation for the observed links between socioeconomic variables and obesity when taste, dietary energy density, and diet costs are used as intervening variables. More and more Americans are becoming overweight and obese while consuming more added sugars and fats and spending a lower percentage of their disposable income on food.American Journal of Clinical Nutrition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I have no idea what your last post has to do with this conversation MWC. You said WIC was similar to Food Stamps. WIC has an entirely different mission than food stamps. It's specifically for those who are "nutritional risk." It said so in that blurb I posted. Further, on their website, it has (I'm not going to include everything): The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children - better known as the WIC Program - serves to safeguard the health of low-income pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk by providing nutritious foods to supplement diets, information on healthy eating including breastfeeding promotion and support, and referrals to health care. ... Applicants must meet all of the following eligibility requirements: Categorical Residential Income Nutrition Risk ... Categorical Requirement The WIC Program is designed to serve certain categories of women, infants, and children. Therefore, the following individuals are considered categorically eligible for WIC: Women -- pregnant (during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after the birth of an infant or the end of the pregnancy) -- postpartum (up to six months after the birth of the infant or the end of the pregnancy) -- breastfeeding (up to the infant's first birthday) Infants (up to the infant's first birthday) Children (up to the child's fifth birthday) ... Nutrition Risk Requirement Applicants must be seen by a health professional such as a physician, nurse, or nutritionist who must determine whether the individual is at nutrition risk. In many cases, this is done in the WIC clinic at no cost to the applicant. However, this information can be obtained from another health professional such as the applicant's physician. "Nutrition risk" means that an individual has medical-based or dietary-based conditions. Examples of medical-based conditions include anemia (low blood levels), underweight, or history of poor pregnancy outcome. A dietary-based condition includes, for example, a poor diet. At a minimum, the applicant's height and weight must be measured and bloodwork taken to check for anemia. An applicant must have at least one of the medical or dietary conditions on the State's list of WIC nutrition risk criteria. Food stamps has an entirely different mission, laundry list of people who qualify for use and different needs. Poor people do not immediately equate to medically nutritionally deficient and in need of a limited diet. These people are not getting medically screened to get food stamps as opposed to WIC. These are two different things unless you just consider "poor" and "food" the same? Which seems to be the case. A poor, adult male, does not have the same nutritional needs as those in WIC which is why men aren't in WIC. There may be some overlap but they're not the same. If you care about the actual view of the food stamps programs you can go here. It explains why "junk food" is allowed (be sure to read the report in the link there). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Oh, wow, that's huge. I think a large drink at McDonald's over here would be no more than 800ml, which would be about 27 ounces. I went to the movies last night, and their large drinks are really big- my fiancee and I shared one, and still didn't manage to get through it all. I reckon at most it would have been about 1100ml, which would equate to 37 ounces approx. I don't think banning the larger cup sizes will do much good, myself, because from my Aussie point of view, the cup sizes are just a symptom of the American culture. When I think of America, I don't think 'land of the free', I think 'land of the big'. I'm looking at the websites for McDonald's in the U.S. and Australia right now. It seems our menus are fairly similar. I can't tell drink sizes from the images so going on nutrition info I'm guessing we're about one size off. So your large is our medium (at McDonald's...there are no universal standard sizes). That would make it roughly 21oz (621ml). Some places I can order the "wrong" size and wind up with 32oz/946ml (or larger). I read that you did have an "extra large" and it was identical with the one we had here (either 42 or 44oz/1.3l...I don't recall the exact size). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Oh yeah? Well, I just had a hot fudge sundae at Buffy's. Hand dipped Blue Bunny ice cream, tons of hot fudge, real whipped cream, crushed peanuts and a cherry. Not effete, snobby, communist health food, but DAMN it was good. And I had a fuckin' Coke, too!!!!!!!!! Just did a search for "Buffy's." Looks like cheap greasy spoon. Me want to eat at Buffy's now. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 In related news: Should Sugary Drinks Be Taxed Like Cigarettes? Calif. City Considering Idea SUMMARY As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposes banning extra-large sugar drinks from public venues, the city of Richmond, Calif., may be poised to go further than any other government in the U.S. with a new tax on soda. Correspondent Spencer Michels reports on a controversial public health campaign to combat obesity and diabetes. PBS. The proposed tax would be about a penny per ounce. I have no idea how they would accurately meter this unless they pump my soda like gasoline from now on. And to think I just voted against Prop 29 that would have added another nickel to each cigarette for a similar reason (and I don't smoke nor do I care for it in any way although this doesn't matter either way). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 You said WIC was similar to Food Stamps.You said WIC was similar to Food Stamps. You're being too literal. They are both food programs for the poor, ala, like or similar. They certainly aren't road repair programs or education programs are they? Comparing their mission statements defeats the purpose of my point and just sidetracks from the issue. My point was, that we limit what can and can't be bought with these types of programs. Tweaking the limitations further to exclude sugar drinks and candy is not discrimination and I defy you to show me a single court ruling that shows otherwise. I honestly can't figure out why this is even controversial. If you care about the actual view of the food stamps programs you can go here. It explains why "junk food" is allowed (be sure to read the report in the link there). Actually, I don't care why they do it. It's my opinion they shouldn't do it; I gave my reasons why. Last I checked, we were still free to disagree with our government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Oh, wow, that's huge. I think a large drink at McDonald's over here would be no more than 800ml, which would be about 27 ounces. I went to the movies last night, and their large drinks are really big- my fiancee and I shared one, and still didn't manage to get through it all. I reckon at most it would have been about 1100ml, which would equate to 37 ounces approx. I don't think banning the larger cup sizes will do much good, myself, because from my Aussie point of view, the cup sizes are just a symptom of the American culture. When I think of America, I don't think 'land of the free', I think 'land of the big'. I'm looking at the websites for McDonald's in the U.S. and Australia right now. It seems our menus are fairly similar. I can't tell drink sizes from the images so going on nutrition info I'm guessing we're about one size off. So your large is our medium (at McDonald's...there are no universal standard sizes). That would make it roughly 21oz (621ml). Some places I can order the "wrong" size and wind up with 32oz/946ml (or larger). I read that you did have an "extra large" and it was identical with the one we had here (either 42 or 44oz/1.3l...I don't recall the exact size). mwc I've never seen an extra large at a McDonald's in my life. Maybe they have brought them out in the cities or something, it's been three years since I was last in Sydney, but I don't think they would just do it in the cities and not all over the country. And I was only at Macca's the other night. The cup sizes are pretty standard across the fast food chains here, though it's good that there are juice and bottled water options these days. Actually, KFC doesn't have any cups- they sell bottles and cans of drinks. I think Red Rooster is the same, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I honestly can't figure out why this is even controversial. Here you agree with government... Actually, I don't care why they do it. It's my opinion they shouldn't do it; I gave my reasons why. Last I checked, we were still free to disagree with our government. And here you don't... Maybe you'll need think about this some more? Seems pretty clear to me that the government isn't "controversial" when you agree with it. Otherwise it's time to exercise our freedoms to disagree with them. Unless they do something that isn't controversial and change "food" to a definition you agree with. This isn't even an argument. It's just "I'll like you if you do things I also like and I won't like you if you do otherwise." mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I honestly can't figure out why this is even controversial. Here you agree with government... Actually, I don't care why they do it. It's my opinion they shouldn't do it; I gave my reasons why. Last I checked, we were still free to disagree with our government. And here you don't... Maybe you'll need think about this some more? Seems pretty clear to me that the government isn't "controversial" when you agree with it. Otherwise it's time to exercise our freedoms to disagree with them. Unless they do something that isn't controversial and change "food" to a definition you agree with. This isn't even an argument. It's just "I'll like you if you do things I also like and I won't like you if you do otherwise." mwc You have a very odd way of arguing sometimes. Kinda like throwing up flak. I'm not following you at all. Here I agree? Where here? Seems your post is missing a quote. Or if you're referring to the 'controversial' quote there, I was pointing to you. I don't get why you find my position, or Bloomberg's if you will, controversial. In any case, instead of playing these games and trying to prove my position is inconsistent by trying to reframe my argument for me, let's just get back to the original argument, which is that I believe it's reasonable and would be a good thing if snickers bars and Mt Dew would be blacklisted on the food stamp program. You balked and called this discrimination. So, show why it's discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConureDelSol Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Y'all are making me want to go to Tropical Smoothie for some reason... I remember that when I went to London and walked into a McDonalds and asked for an Oreo McFlurry and they looked at me as though I had grown an extra head. It turned out they only had fruity flavors and none with candy in them. Eating french fries with a McFlurry that tastes like a dreamsicle just isn't the same as having them with an Oreo McFlurry. That is my random comment for the hour. You may now return to your regularly scheduled discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 BP's mention of Australian food/drink sizes reminds me of something that happened to me while in Japan some years ago. My Evil Ex and I were fucking JONESING for "real" (read: American) food. We visited a McDonald's and he ordered a Big Mac, huge fries, huge drink. Granted, we weren't really fluent in Japanese, but even so he had to drag the cashier out from behind her till to point at what he wanted on their big menu poster on the wall. She finally got the idea, and then had to go get the manager to explain to the cooks how to make this meal, because they had never actually made anything except the little hamburgers and cheeseburgers. Yes, I was mortified--he was already on his way to becoming yet another tubby fundie (the most recent picture of him I've seen showed that he was carrying his quadruplets low) and everybody there was giving him some looks. Ophelia, I think you have the right of it here. The lower-income the family, the unhealthier the food they buy is. And the links between obesity and income/education level have been demonstrated more than amply by now. In light of those facts and the others I've outlined, Ouro, I'm just not up to abdicating all responsibility for the health of the nation. We created this perfect storm--so now what? Just whistle while our most vulnerable citizens get sick and die from exercising a "choice" that's offered purely because it's insanely profitable for manufacturers and the only real option at hand for the poorest and least-educated consumers? And then enjoy the bigger tax bill generated by those people getting sick and needing healthcare? Consumer choice is nice, but you know the companies shoveling this shit into people who don't know better sure aren't going to be footing the bill for their care later. We are. So are we still thinking that leaving them to it is the best option now that we've created an environment in which ignorance is endemic and sickness is inevitable? I just can't agree with that. PS: Regarding life expectancy: http://www.nia.nih.g...alysis-suggests from the NIH. The US already has no bragging rights regarding its overall health and life expectancy, but this report makes some startling assertions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Ophelia, we're not communicating. I gave you a clear example how you can eat heathy for under $2/ meal/adult (less for children). Please provide an example of what kind of junk food and at what cost someone who is low income would buy which costs less than that of my example? I did not say it was logical but here is an abstract from a study that says what I have been trying to say: Many health disparities in the United States are linked to inequalities in education and income. This review focuses on the relation between obesity and diet quality, dietary energy density, and energy costs. Evidence is provided to support the following points. First, the highest rates of obesity occur among population groups with the highest poverty rates and the least education. Second, there is an inverse relation between energy density (MJ/kg) and energy cost ($/MJ), such that energy-dense foods composed of refined grains, added sugars, or fats may represent the lowest-cost option to the consumer. Third, the high energy density and palatability of sweets and fats are associated with higher energy intakes, at least in clinical and laboratory studies. Fourth, poverty and food insecurity are associated with lower food expenditures, low fruit and vegetable consumption, and lower-quality diets. A reduction in diet costs in linear programming models leads to high-fat, energy-dense diets that are similar in composition to those consumed by low-income groups. Such diets are more affordable than are prudent diets based on lean meats, fish, fresh vegetables, and fruit. The association between poverty and obesity may be mediated, in part, by the low cost of energy-dense foods and may be reinforced by the high palatability of sugar and fat. This economic framework provides an explanation for the observed links between socioeconomic variables and obesity when taste, dietary energy density, and diet costs are used as intervening variables. More and more Americans are becoming overweight and obese while consuming more added sugars and fats and spending a lower percentage of their disposable income on food.American Journal of Clinical Nutrition I don't dispute that at all. The truth is, yes it's harder to eat healthy on a budget, but it can be done. Valk mentioned earlier abou canned fruit for example. While not quite as good as fresh fruit, it's light years better than potato chips. My point was to show that it is possible with effort. And the consensus seems to point to what your article shared, that education plays a big role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I hear you, Free. My mom was a Southern coupon queen--she had boxes and boxes of them in the garage. Her grocery shopping trips were as tactically and strategically planned as anything you'd see out of classical warfare treatises (in the 80s, we once stuffed her station wagon full with bags of food for $17, I am not kidding). She was also a gifted cook who could make a good meal out of very humble ingredients. But that sort of planning and prepwork takes a lot of time, and I don't think families are geared toward spending that sort of time or effort on their food budgets anymore. CAN it be done? Yes. But do our poorest citizens have the know-how and the motivation to do it? I'd say studies have indicated not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I hear you, Free. My mom was a Southern coupon queen--she had boxes and boxes of them in the garage. Her grocery shopping trips were as tactically and strategically planned as anything you'd see out of classical warfare treatises (in the 80s, we once stuffed her station wagon full with bags of food for $17, I am not kidding). She was also a gifted cook who could make a good meal out of very humble ingredients. But that sort of planning and prepwork takes a lot of time, and I don't think families are geared toward spending that sort of time or effort on their food budgets anymore. CAN it be done? Yes. But do our poorest citizens have the know-how and the motivation to do it? I'd say studies have indicated not. Or the ability, I mean seriously lunch meat which ain't the worst thing in the world is hitting close to 5 dollars. Shit is expensive and crap is cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Shit is expensive and crap is cheap. ? It's a fucking paradox. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 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. It's called "fat acceptance". Not only has it become socially acceptable to be overweight (or even obese in some parts of the country), it's almost to the point where it's become socially unacceptable to not be overweight. I know, because I have a lean build (mostly I get called "skinny", much to my dislike), and I get crap from people all the time. A few years ago I visited my family for the holidays and there were many relatives there I had never met before. Most were at least slightly to moderately overweight (nobody I would call obese though), but at one point someone decided to tell me I was "too skinny", and about four or five people decided to jump on the "lets hate on the skinny guy" bandwagon. WTF!? I am in perfect health! I have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, low pulse rate, I am on no meds for anything, etc etc etc. Yet I end up being the "freak" in the room because i'm not a fatass. This is VERY fucked up. But, that's modern day America.... fat 'n lazy..... and proud of it! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts