The NY soda law

[bushwacked]

 

I find that hilarious. The idiots want to limit the oz in a soda but have no issues with throwing down hot dog after hot dog.

 

Detlef - what is better for the body - 20 ozs of Dew or 68 hot dogs in one sitting?

 

The hypocrisy of govt never ceases to amaze.

 

 

I'm thinking routine overconsumption of soda may ultimately cost the state more than an annual hot dog eating contest. It is cute how you and ice a blaming the gubbment for not extending the law after you were intially chirping about the slippery slope.

[detlef]

I get what you are saying and my comment was mostly in jest but it still comes down to the issue that you think the ban is ok?

 

You seem to be not against it - it isn't perfect in your eyes but you are not against it.

 

I think that other somewhat random restrictions have had the desired effect of curbing consumption of things that people really shouldn't be consuming much of. That and I don't think it's a sign that the end of freedom is near.

[Ice1]

Secondly, I'm not sure exactly what you expect to accomplish by throwing a bunch of big words associated with metabolism and such. Maybe you actually know what they mean, maybe you just grabbed them from the internet. Let's just assume you know what all that stuff means. How does that dispute my assertion that you've been over-simplifying things to a fault? It would just mean that you know what you're talking about and choose to misinform people.

 

 

To be clear, the only one that really simplified anything was Bloomberg.

 

The body's use of energy is complex. I could argue until the cows come home that glucose is the easiest energy source to metabolize when compared to other sources but it would probably only confuse the issue. Many of us can also intelligently discuss the variables of what affects the human body as it relates to energy burn but none of these factors will change the basic math. In the end, counting Calories is a pretty easy way for those that care enough to manage weight. It would also stand to reason that these individuals are making an effort to eat better.

 

My belief is you can't fix stupid with stupid regulations.

 

Perhaps that is oversimplification in your mind. I have been agreeing with you that proper diet and exercise promotes health. I simply disagree that Bloomberg mandating a 16 oz max container purchase of soda at a restaurant will do anything to combat obesity. Obesity, is no doubt a problem and a large percentage are obese because of their own mismanagement.

 

We can agree to disagree without the name calling.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Ice1

[detlef]

I could argue until the cows come home that glucose is the easiest energy source to metabolize when compared to other sources but it would probably only confuse the issue.

 

You do realize that is not actually a good thing, right?

 

That, the fact that sugars like glucose are so easily and quickly metabolized is precisely why things like sodas are uniquely bad for you. You do realize that, right?

Edited July 5, 2012 by detlef

[gbpfan1231]

I'm thinking routine overconsumption of soda may ultimately cost the state more than an annual hot dog eating contest. It is cute how you and ice a blaming the gubbment for not extending the law after you were intially chirping about the slippery slope.

 

That was the point ya idiot.

 

Not blaming the gubbment (I guess it is funny??) just showing the hypocrisy of the people OK with this ban - if does show that a slippery slope is possible - even Det mentioned it - now they have to worry about the 64 oz steak and other food challenges.

 

To ban soda and then judge a hot dog eating contest wreaks of hypocrisy to me but that seems to be the liberal way.

[gbpfan1231]

To be clear, the only one that really simplified anything was Bloomberg.

 

The body's use of energy is complex. I could argue until the cows come home that glucose is the easiest energy source to metabolize when compared to other sources but it would probably only confuse the issue. Many of us can also intelligently discuss the variables of what affects the human body as it relates to energy burn but none of these factors will change the basic math. In the end, counting Calories is a pretty easy way for those that care enough to manage weight. It would also stand to reason that these individuals are making an effort to eat better.

 

My belief is you can't fix stupid with stupid regulations.

 

Perhaps that is oversimplification in your mind. I have been agreeing with you that proper diet and exercise promotes health. I simply disagree that Bloomberg mandating a 16 oz max container purchase of soda at a restaurant will do anything to combat obesity. Obesity, is no doubt a problem and a large percentage are obese because of their own mismanagement.

 

We can agree to disagree without the name calling.

 

I guess I can't.

[Ice1]

You do realize that is not actually a good thing, right?

 

That, the fact that sugars like glucose are so easily and quickly metabolized is precisely why things like sodas are uniquely bad for you. You do realize that, right?

 

 

Yep, it would confuse the issue. The body cannot survive in good health without Glucose. The body must be able to convert glucose to energy in an efficient manner. Glucose is the key source of energy for the human body. The relationship between brain function and glucose are as critical as it gets. Might want to study up on this relationship. I can't remember the specifics but I know it has something to do with the neurons inability to store glucose so they depend on the constant supply in the blood stream.

 

I will leave at this: Everyone should be ecstatic that glucose metabolizes so quickly.

 

In your defense, too much sugar at one time is a bad thing short term. No doubt a sugar rush can be bad and I have seen this a few times.

 

In any case this tangent really has nothing to with ordering a 16oz soda at the restaurant. Go Big Brother!!!!!

Edited July 6, 2012 by Ice1

[bushwacked]

That was the point ya idiot.

 

 

I don't think a state wide ban on large sodas is brilliant legislation. The attempt to make potential gubbment intervention on the entire state of NY drinking super-sized sodas on a consistent and ever-going basis equivalent to limiting the amount of consumption (or out-right ban?) during a once of year hot dog contest between several contestants (who might all be from out-of-state and have almost certainly signed waivers limiting financial liability onto gubbment entities) registers significantly lower on the intelligence richter scale. The comparison is desperately retarded.

 

Let's pretend your attempt at equivalence wasn't absurd but valid. You still whined about the inevitable slippery slope and now are whining about the hypocrisy when it didn't happen. You are extra extra special. You've made a point, but let me assure you that you didn't make the one you wanted to.

[detlef]

Yep, it would confuse the issue. The body cannot survive in good health without Glucose. The body must be able to convert glucose to energy in an efficient manner. Glucose is the key source of energy for the human body. The relationship between brain function and glucose are as critical as it gets. Might want to study up on this relationship. I can't remember the specifics but I know it has something to do with the neurons inability to store glucose so they depend on the constant supply in the blood stream.

 

I will leave at this: Everyone should be ecstatic that glucose metabolizes so quickly.

 

In your defense, too much sugar at one time is a bad thing short term. No doubt a sugar rush can be bad and I have seen this a few times.

 

In any case this tangent really has nothing to with ordering a 16oz soda at the restaurant. Go Big Brother!!!!!

 

Well, I give you this much, you're right about bringing up the importance of glucose "confusing things". Mind you, it's not because you're on to something that nobody gets, but rather because it's pointless to mention in this discussion.

 

I can only assume that your whole reasoning for bringing it up is to argue that I've been giving sugar a bad rap. Why else would you go to such lengths to discuss how vital it is to our body function.

 

However, the only logical reason to do so in this conversation assumes two things. 1) That there aren't a ton of sources of glucose besides refined sugar and 2) That people not getting enough glucose from their diets is anything we need to worry at all about in this country unless you're literally speaking about feeding those who are actually starving. In that case, I agree. We do need soup kitchens. But I don't think that was your point.

 

So, I'm dying to know. Why are you bringing up the importance of glucose, a substance our bodies were designed to mine from whole foods?

[SEC=UGA]

 

 

I don't think a state wide ban on large sodas is brilliant legislation. The attempt to make potential gubbment intervention on the entire state of NY drinking super-sized sodas on a consistent and ever-going basis equivalent to limiting the amount of consumption (or out-right ban?) during a once of year hot dog contest between several contestants (who might all be from out-of-state and have almost certainly signed waivers limiting financial liability onto gubbment entities) registers significantly lower on the intelligence richter scale. The comparison is desperately retarded.

 

Let's pretend your attempt at equivalence wasn't absurd but valid. You still whined about the inevitable slippery slope and now are whining about the hypocrisy when it didn't happen. You are extra extra special. You've made a point, but let me assure you that you didn't make the one you wanted to.

 

 

Yer new font bothers me.

[Ice1]

 

So, I'm dying to know. Why are you bringing up the importance of glucose, a substance our bodies were designed to mine from whole foods?

 

 

It may have something to do with reading these type of statements that make zero sense when discussing the body's ability to easily metabolize glucose. The point being that it is not only a good thing but an essential thing.

 

You do realize that is not actually a good thing, right?

 

That, the fact that sugars like glucose are so easily and quickly metabolized is precisely why things like sodas are uniquely bad for you. You do realize that, right?

 

One can make all kinds of arguments as to why individuals should limit soda in excess but diabetes and metabolism rate of glucose are not valid arguments.

 

Your base argument is nothing more than the government should regulate the size of a drink in a restaurant but no place else because this message will help idiots that do not understand too many Calories are bad for you and you will get fat.

 

That is a weak argument that while will add layers of regulation, it will not do a damn thing to address obesity in my view. Lots of normal weight healthy people may enjoy a big gulp from time to time when sitting down to visit an establishment.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I did not see a thread about the foolish arrogance of a nanny state turning into a several page debate on nutrition.

[detlef]

It may have something to do with reading these type of statements that make zero sense when discussing the body's ability to easily metabolize glucose. The point being that it is not only a good thing but an essential thing.

 

 

 

One can make all kinds of arguments as to why individuals should limit soda in excess but diabetes and metabolism rate of glucose are not valid arguments.

 

Your base argument is nothing more than the government should regulate the size of a drink in a restaurant but no place else because this message will help idiots that do not understand too many Calories are bad for you and you will get fat.

 

That is a weak argument that while will add layers of regulation, it will not do a damn thing to address obesity in my view. Lots of normal weight healthy people may enjoy a big gulp from time to time when sitting down to visit an establishment.

 

At this point it is rather certain that you either work for the sugar lobby or are just fishing.

 

Is your argument really that we shouldn't be so hard on refined sugar because, ultimately our body needs glucose? So, rather than making our bodies struggle to mine whole foods for it, we should just go ahead and eat it straight?

 

Again, you keep bringing up how important glucose is. Are you honestly concerned that we don't get enough of it?

[Ice1]

At this point it is rather certain that you either work for the sugar lobby or are just fishing.

 

Is your argument really that we shouldn't be so hard on refined sugar because, ultimately our body needs glucose? So, rather than making our bodies struggle to mine whole foods for it, we should just go ahead and eat it straight?

 

Again, you keep bringing up how important glucose is. Are you honestly concerned that we don't get enough of it?

 

 

Hahaha,

 

No, I don't work for the sugar industry. Making our bodies struggle to digest food? TWINKIES ANYONE, are you saying if we suddenly drink a 20oz coke at a restaurant instead of a 16oz coke we are screwed?

 

What I am saying is basically, I do not need idiots telling me or forcing me into some stupid random law centered on drink size in a restaurant under cover of "they" think they know what is best.

 

Obviously, you are trying to justify this intervention; My take is this law is arrogant stupidity at its finest.

[detlef]

Hahaha,

 

No, I don't work for the sugar industry. Making our bodies struggle to digest food? TWINKIES ANYONE, are you saying if we suddenly drink a 20oz coke at a restaurant instead of a 16oz coke we are screwed?

 

What I am saying is basically, I do not need idiots telling me or forcing me into some stupid random law centered on drink size in a restaurant under cover of "they" think they know what is best.

 

Obviously, you are trying to justify this intervention; My take is this law is arrogant stupidity at its finest.

 

No, my point that I have said over and over again is that saying this is a stupid and random law is a fine and valid argument. I have my reasons for why I don't think it's quite as useless as most (even though it would not be my first choice of ways to deal with the issue, which I've also said over and over), but I totally get why others don't.

 

Where I take issue, is when people like you are not happy simply arguing that 16 oz is a silly place to draw the line but then try to go further and debunk any notion that consuming tons of sugar is even all that bad for us anyway (or, at very least, any worse for us than consuming any number of other things in large amounts). An argument that reaches it's idiotic crescendo with your "Glucose is vital to our existance" bit, inanely making the massive leap from, "since our body breaks things down to glucose that it needs to do basically everything, ingesting lots of refined sugars can't be all that bad."

 

I have barely taken up for the law specifically in this thread and have been simply trying to make people understand that refined sugar is, in fact, uniquely bad for us. That the "eating too much of anything" argument fails to accurately grasp the notion that, unlike so many of the "anythings" that get listed, refined sugar is particularily bad.

 

Yes, despite the fact that our bodies need glucose. Why? Because it just so happens that our diets and even wastelines happen to be swimming with things that our body can mine that precious glucose from.

Edited July 6, 2012 by detlef

[bushwacked]

Yer new font bothers me.

 

 

I don't like it either and don't know how i changed it.

[Ice1]

 

Where I take issue, is when people like you are not happy simply arguing that 16 oz is a silly place to draw the line but then try to go further and debunk any notion that consuming tons of sugar is even all that bad for us anyway (or, at very least, any worse for us than consuming any number of other things in large amounts).

 

 

What are you talking about?

 

Exactly where did I ever make these claims? Reading things that are not there may make sense in your world but the reality is I have not made the claims you are trying to sell. I am sure if you read my posts in context you will find this to be true.

[detlef]

What are you talking about?

 

Exactly where did I ever make these claims? Reading things that are not there may make sense in your world but the reality is I have not made the claims you are trying to sell. I am sure if you read my posts in context you will find this to be true.

 

1) This entire thread has been filled with people playing the "why not red meat?" "why not fried chicken?" "why not mac and cheese" and other similar cards. Quite obviously intimating that sugar was somehow randomly picked from a list of other "dangerous" foods for no particular reason.

 

2) Your assertion about calories being calories essentially implies that sugar, specifically, is not the issue. Rather how much you eat of whatever it is that you choose to eat, follows that same line that, again, refined sugar is not uniquely bad.

 

3) But, again, you going on about how important glucose is sort of clinches it. Again, why would you even bother to bring up something that virtually every American gets no shortage of in their diets (even those that consume no refined sugar at all) and, quite likely is storing enough fat around their gut that their body can mine still more from that (kinda sorta)?

 

Seriously, what is the point of even discussing how important glucose is if you were not trying to counter my argument that refined sugar is about the worst thing we can eat?

Edited July 6, 2012 by detlef

[Square]

I did not see a thread about the foolish arrogance of a nanny state turning into a several page debate on nutrition.

I'm going to wait 5 more pages and find a way to bring Tebow into the discussion.

[bpwallace49]

Detlef. Vs. ice1

 

Thunderdome. Two men enter. One man leaves

 

 

Winner gets a big gulp of coke.

 

 

Go.

[stevegrab]

I really missed this discussion while I was gone on vacation

 

And for the record I drank mostly water, some gatorade, lemonade and the occassional soda (sometimes exceeding that scary 16oz limit).

 

I still say

- yep people eat poorly, drink too much soda, eat too much fast food, not enough fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains

- passing a law that limits soda sizes in restaurants in NYC will have virtually no affect on that, particularly since it will only affect a small percentage of the population

 

All the other lengthy debates about nutrition and so on are pretty unimportant. You either think its ok for the government to pass silly laws like this or you don't.

 

Arbitrary and random, Detlef has said that himself several times. And this wouldn't be his first choice. Yet somehow he thinks this will have some significant impact on people's health.

[detlef]

I really missed this discussion while I was gone on vacation

 

And for the record I drank mostly water, some gatorade, lemonade and the occassional soda (sometimes exceeding that scary 16oz limit).

 

I still say

- yep people eat poorly, drink too much soda, eat too much fast food, not enough fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains

- passing a law that limits soda sizes in restaurants in NYC will have virtually no affect on that, particularly since it will only affect a small percentage of the population

 

All the other lengthy debates about nutrition and so on are pretty unimportant. You either think its ok for the government to pass silly laws like this or you don't.

 

Arbitrary and random, Detlef has said that himself several times. And this wouldn't be his first choice. Yet somehow he thinks this will have some significant impact on people's health.

 

 

1) Apparently the preferred choice among many here of dealing with the growing issue of obesity is to inform and wait it out. Which is fine. Yet, based on the discussion here, plenty lack a fundamental understanding of the topic and, what's worse, some feel compelled to make an effort to actually downplay the dangers of our massive consumption of sugar. To ignore the unique health hazzards overconsumption of refined sugar present. So, with that in mind, a debate on nutrition seems entirely important. I mean, if we're going to "inform and wait it out", shouldn't we actually stop pretending that it's not a big deal? Or is everyone really just advocating "ignore and wait it out".

 

2) Don't twist my words. I look at the effect that other random restrictions on certain substances have had on demonizing them and how that could have a role in the fact that abuse of those substances is in decline. To me, that suggests that this might not be as stupid or ineffective as many think. Yet you and so many others feel the need to portray that as a ringing endorsement.

[stevegrab]

1) Apparently the preferred choice among many here of dealing with the growing issue of obesity is to inform and wait it out. Which is fine. Yet, based on the discussion here, plenty lack a fundamental understanding of the topic and, what's worse, some feel compelled to make an effort to actually downplay the dangers of our massive consumption of sugar. To ignore the unique health hazzards overconsumption of refined sugar present. So, with that in mind, a debate on nutrition seems entirely important. I mean, if we're going to "inform and wait it out", shouldn't we actually stop pretending that it's not a big deal? Or is everyone really just advocating "ignore and wait it out".

 

2) Don't twist my words. I look at the effect that other random restrictions on certain substances have had on demonizing them and how that could have a role in the fact that abuse of those substances is in decline. To me, that suggests that this might not be as stupid or ineffective as many think. Yet you and so many others feel the need to portray that as a ringing endorsement.

 

 

I'll try to deal with my own weight issues and expect others to do the same. I don't execpt (or want) the government to start deciding what foods/drinks can be served and in what sizes.

 

Some people get that simple concept, others seem to think we all need to have a plan to deal with the obesity problem. The discussions of various health and nutrition topics in this thread has been informative. But the basic fact still remains, the very narrow focus of this law (NYC only, sodas in restaurant only, etc.) means it will have very limited affect on the problem. Besides, the demonizing of some things can make them more attractive and more heavily consumed. Look at teenage drinking and recreational drug use.

[westvirginia]

Anyone who thinks that this law is reasonable has demonstrated how our govt got to where it is today.

 

I'm not saying those people are right or wrong, but I am saying that it's short-sighted to suggest that the entity know as the US Govt had the ambition of becoming large and powerful to a micromanaging level. Yes, individuals in the govt want power and control, but it's the fault of The People as to why our govt is the way it is, not the govt itself.

 

I'm just rambling cuz my 18yo nephew thinks our govt is somehow evil and wants a revolution to bring it down. I tried to explain to him that a revolution would only kill innocent people cuz The People who live will only cause our Govt to get back to where it is today, at some point.

 

 

Yeah, in 200 more years maybe...

[Azazello1313]

Or is everyone really just advocating "ignore and wait it out".

 

 

I haven't read this whole thread, but I can tell you what I would advocate. and that is "what I eat or drink is none of your f*cking business."

 

Libertarianism: the radical notion that other people are not your property. you and any other food puritans out there should look into it sometime.

 

seriously, if we as a society really start parsing out what other people should or should not put in their mouths in the interest of "the public health", it's pretty logical that booze has to be one of the first things to go. I would think it's pretty clearly in your personal and professional interest to recoil like hell from this sort of nonsense. or do you actually trust the 21st century temperance movement to waltz right up to the point where you'd like them to draw the line but stop right there and go no further?