Page 6 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 52 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: Big Apple Soda Ban
2 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2012 - 12:02AM #51
rabello
Posts: 21,805

Jun 5, 2012 -- 5:43PM, Erey wrote:


For the record, if I felt compelled to do something about obesity I would instead formulate a witty and catchy series of public service messages aimed at eschewing the supersize. 




The big sugary drinks that are at the heart of Mayor Bloomberg's plan ARE "the supersize".


And sorry, scientific evidence shows that the huge drinks we now have to tolerate do contribute to childhood obesity, which is turn, has been shown to be linked to onset of type II diabetes (used to be called "adult onset" but for obvious reasons, that is no longer an accurate description).


Nobody's freedom is being violated.  If someone needs to have a liter of coke to go with a meal at a restaurant, they can get it, they are just going to have to pay for it.  Why not?  Supply and demand.  Those who only want an 8 ounce serving (single serving) shouldn't have to a) pay for what someone who wants 32 ounce serving (four servings) has to pay, only to b) have to dump 3/4 of what they paid for down the drain.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2012 - 8:28AM #52
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,720

Jun 5, 2012 -- 5:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

But we need to do something. 



First and foremost by a million times: Stop subsidizing corn.


 




 

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2012 - 8:38AM #53
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,720

Jun 5, 2012 -- 4:11PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The problem is inactivity



Inactivity is a very small part of the problem.  Calorie intake is far, far more likely to lead to obesity than lack of activity.


Take this case:


The Twinkie Diet


For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.


His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.


The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.



Now, yes this was very unhealthy.  But his overall point stands, he controlled the amount of calories that went in, he lost weight. 


A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.



 




Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2012 - 1:40PM #54
Cesmom
Posts: 5,203

Jun 5, 2012 -- 4:59PM, Erey wrote:


Jun 5, 2012 -- 3:08PM, rabello wrote:


Limiting a single serving of a sugary drink to 16 ounces (4 oz more than what comes in a standard can of pop) --that is an "abuse of power"?   If people need 4 or 6 servings of a sugary drink to go with one meal while at a restuarant, they can get it, they'd just have to pay for it.  What's wrong with that?  Free market values!!!  Supply and demand!!  You see it as an abuse of power for whatever reason, I see it as an abuse of the public, especially kids.  Nobody is being prevented from purchasing 2 or 3 Big Gulps -- it'll just come in 2 or 3 containers instead of one, and there won't be free "bottomless" refills at Chuckee Cheese's.  I have no idea why anybody would get their gander up over such a bengn plan based on the prinicples of supply and demand.





yes, I don't appreciate people butting their nose in MY rights as a consumer to purchase what a Vendor has been selling me.  If I want to buy a Big Gulp ain't nobody's flipping business. 


Again, if I could on some level see this as solving say even 5-10% of the obesity problem of NY city then I would say go for it!  If it could work on some level but it won't because it can't.  you care not going to get less fat people by doing this.


And yes, on occasion I LIKE A BIG GULP.  I can be trusted to drink them on occasion and not 5 Big Gulps in a day .  Again, I would forgo my occasional Big Gulp if I could see it reducing waist lines around the country. But it won't.  Nobody really imagines this is going to help.  It is just a way of exerting control and domination over people.  Fuckem!  I say


If you want to reduce Obesisty get people moving.  Get them substituting problem foods for more positive ones.  Ideally do this without being an asshole and casting all kinds of Nanny State legislation. 




Absolutely right.  It is an abuse of power.  I don't want anyone legislating what I can or can't consume.  It's utterly ridiculous.  People need to be allowed to make their own decisions, even if they are not always the right ones.

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2012 - 1:44PM #55
Cesmom
Posts: 5,203

Jun 6, 2012 -- 8:38AM, Nepenthe wrote:


Now, yes this was very unhealthy.  But his overall point stands, he controlled the amount of calories that went in, he lost weight. 


A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.





His statement seems to clearly indicate that exercise and diet are of equal importance when it comes to weight loss.  Either consume fewer calories, or burn more.  Ideally, a person would do both.

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2012 - 2:14PM #56
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 5, 2012 -- 9:49PM, Paravani wrote:


Hi, All!


Long time, no post...  Nice to see all of you again!



Jun 5, 2012 -- 4:11PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The problem isn't so much diet, IMO.


We used to pound down quite a lot of sugar when I was a kid too. The neighborhood corner store would sell cans of pop and candy bars for a quarter each, and we took full advantage.


The problem is inactivity.


In the summer, we would leave the house just after sun up, and be running around or on our bikes until our parents made us come in to go to bed.


Nowadays, kids just sit inside on their arse.




Just kids?  So, you jog while posting so prolifically on Beliefnet?


;-D


Love,


-- C







Good to see you again.


No, I do jumping jacks while posting... Wink

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2012 - 2:18PM #57
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 6, 2012 -- 8:38AM, Nepenthe wrote:


Jun 5, 2012 -- 4:11PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The problem is inactivity



Inactivity is a very small part of the problem.  Calorie intake is far, far more likely to lead to obesity than lack of activity.


Take this case:


The Twinkie Diet


For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.


His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.


The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.



Now, yes this was very unhealthy.  But his overall point stands, he controlled the amount of calories that went in, he lost weight. 


A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.



 







It's not only just how much you take in, but what you take in.


Also, I would like to note, simple weight loss might not indicate overall fitness. Indeed, one might actually gain weight on an exercise program, because muscle weighs far more than fat. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2012 - 5:04PM #58
Erey
Posts: 18,951

At some point those sodas get so big I wonder how people manage.  I think 32 ounces is very doable.  But those big 64 ounces are double fisters, how do you hold one of those with one hand? 



The vendors will sell them as long as it is profitable to do so, people will purchase them as long as it makes them feel good.  I think almost all of us at some point during our growing up take stock of our diet and wonder if we might feel better if we changed it up a bit. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2012 - 5:15PM #59
teilhard
Posts: 51,560

The "Super-Size" Pricing Strategy is interesting, isn't it ... ???


Some Years ago our local Gas & Grocery Shop featured Fresh-on-Premises Baked Goods, including some very respectable large Chocolate Chip Cookies ...


The Prices:  one for 39 cents, three for a Dollar, six for $l.69 ... I charted the Price Structure on a Graph and figured out that if you could order-up an INFINITE Number of Cookies ... they would be NEARLY -- but not QUITE -- "FREE" ... !!! (So I generally just bought ... ONE ...) ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 06, 2012 - 5:21PM #60
rabello
Posts: 21,805

Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:40PM, Cesmom wrote:


Absolutely right.  It is an abuse of power.  I don't want anyone legislating what I can or can't consume.  It's utterly ridiculous.  




Well, not "absolutely" right.  Nobody is "legislating" what you or Erey can or cannot consume, or how much of it you can or cannot consume.  What attitudes like your's and Erey's are doing, though, is forcing people like me who don't want an oversized glass of pop when ordering out to have to pay twice as much as I should have to, because I can only get the supersized volume that you want, and then have to decide whether to drink it all to get what I paid for, or to have to throw out what I paid for.   When was the last time anyone got a simple 8 ounce cup of coke when they ordered a "small" drink.


Those who insist on mischaracterizing what the Bloomberg plan is doing sound like smokers from 20 or 30 years ago...I remember it well:  "nobody can tell me what I can or cannot put into my body, or where I have to be to put it into my body, esp the gubmint, f*ckem all" to quote Erey's fine speech....sure enough, though, 20 years later, a lot less people smoke and those who still do meekly go outside to do it without the cussing


Jun 6, 2012 -- 1:40PM, Cesmom wrote:


People need to be allowed to make their own decisions, even if they are not always the right ones.




Well, do you support government-subsidized health care for those who don't qualify for medicaid but can't afford to buy regular insurance, for the lifelong condition of adult-onset diabetes and all that comes with it (kidney, heart, skin discorders, amputations, etc) that they developed as kids for making the wrong choices?


In reality, it's not the people drinking oversized drinks that are making the decisions, it's the "vendors" who are peddling it who are making the decisions.  Those who think the "vendor's" "rights" supercede the buyer's "rights" still have freedom of choice -- the freedom to decide to buy two 16 ounce containers of soda pop or slurpee instead of one 32 ounce container of soda pop

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 52  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 52 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 2 guests
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook