detlef

The NY soda law

Recommended Posts

All the money and time put towards creating and enforcing this law should be put toward education and easy access to information.

 

My son, 12, used to crave sodas all the time, and would incessantly bargain with me about how many he could have a day etc.

 

Then at his elementary school, his gym teacher had them plug in what they ate and drank every day into an online nutrition calculator for two weeks. He did not tell them what to eat in any way. This calculator would keep track of dozens of vitamins and minerals ingested everyday and graph those against what a child his age should be getting. It also kept track of how many calories he consumed every day against how many he should get etc.

 

The results were amazing, he was flabbergasted when he drank a soda, and the needles on the vitamin and mineral graphs did not move at all, whereas the calorie graph would skyrocket. He also began to experiment with green vegetables because he enjoyed watching the needles move up!

 

He has not asked for a soda in 6 months now, as he has voluntarily declared sodas "stupid". (I tried to tell him that, but he would not listed to me, because he's 12, and I am his Dad, so I obviously know nothing about anything)

 

My point here is that even a 12-year-old can self regulate if they truly understand. And that this took no laws to achieve. This type of information should be easy to get and understand for everyone. My issue is more with the big food companies lobbying to be allowed to NOT disclose what is in their food or how it is processed, only with full transparency can we really ask for full personal responsibility.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Detlef - would you even be in this discussion if someone came into your restaurant and said your portions are too big - there is now a law on the weight of the plate you serve your guests - now also make the assumption that large portions is one of the major things that your restaurant does to attract business or say you have a couple of special dishes that draws people in and in those special dishes there is a secret ingredient and a law says you can't add that ingredient to your recipe.

 

I assume you may still be in this discussion but being one of the many saying it is stupid.

 

For starters, I think you are guilty of what I've mentioned on a number of occassions, failing to understand the unique health hazzard that soft drinks, more than simply eating too much cause. Well, that and the fact that you and everyone seems to be missing the fact that I actually do recognize that the 16oz ban is still essentially random anyway.

 

I get the impression around here that, if you're not lock step, 100% against something, then you must be absolutely, completely in favor of it.

 

Guys, I freaking get it. The law, at face value is random. Not as random, mind you, as everyone wants to make it, but random none the less. All I'm saying, and what everyone is illustrating with their responses, is that nobody truly gets how incredibly unhealthy our abuse of soft drinks truly is. We've been eating too much forever. That's why we're a bit bigger, in general. But we've only started guzzling soft drinks in massive containers over the last 20 or so years, and that, oddly enough, has coincided with people totally blowing up.

All the money and time put towards creating and enforcing this law should be put toward education and easy access to information.

 

My son, 12, used to crave sodas all the time, and would incessantly bargain with me about how many he could have a day etc.

 

Then at his elementary school, his gym teacher had them plug in what they ate and drank every day into an online nutrition calculator for two weeks. He did not tell them what to eat in any way. This calculator would keep track of dozens of vitamins and minerals ingested everyday and graph those against what a child his age should be getting. It also kept track of how many calories he consumed every day against how many he should get etc.

 

The results were amazing, he was flabbergasted when he drank a soda, and the needles on the vitamin and mineral graphs did not move at all, whereas the calorie graph would skyrocket. He also began to experiment with green vegetables because he enjoyed watching the needles move up!

 

He has not asked for a soda in 6 months now, as he has voluntarily declared sodas "stupid". (I tried to tell him that, but he would not listed to me, because he's 12, and I am his Dad, so I obviously know nothing about anything)

 

My point here is that even a 12-year-old can self regulate if they truly understand. And that this took no laws to achieve. This type of information should be easy to get and understand for everyone. My issue is more with the big food companies lobbying to be allowed to NOT disclose what is in their food or how it is processed, only with full transparency can we really ask for full personal responsibility.

 

Sounds like a great teacher, and I would love it if it were only a matter of getting our teachers to step up. Problem is, we want to pay them less and require them to worry more and more about standardized testing while far too many parents ignore their part in the equation of raising their kids. In essence, looking to the schools as child care. So, I guess I don't want to just add this to the list of things we expect our teachers to take care of and call it a day.

 

I'm afraid that far too many people as good as your son's teacher will just end up finding other careers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For starters, I think you are guilty of what I've mentioned on a number of occassions, failing to understand the unique health hazzard that soft drinks, more than simply eating too much cause. Well, that and the fact that you and everyone seems to be missing the fact that I actually do recognize that the 16oz ban is still essentially random anyway.

 

I get the impression around here that, if you're not lock step, 100% against something, then you must be absolutely, completely in favor of it.

 

Guys, I freaking get it. The law, at face value is random. Not as random, mind you, as everyone wants to make it, but random none the less. All I'm saying, and what everyone is illustrating with their responses, is that nobody truly gets how incredibly unhealthy our abuse of soft drinks truly is. We've been eating too much forever. That's why we're a bit bigger, in general. But we've only started guzzling soft drinks in massive containers over the last 20 or so years, and that, oddly enough, has coincided with people totally blowing up.

Sounds like a great teacher, and I would love it if it were only a matter of getting our teachers to step up. Problem is, we want to pay them less and require them to worry more and more about standardized testing while far too many parents ignore their part in the equation of raising their kids. In essence, looking to the schools as child care. So, I guess I don't want to just add this to the list of things we expect our teachers to take care of and call it a day.

 

I'm afraid that far too many people as good as your son's teacher will just end up finding other careers.

 

You do realize the supreme irony of saying that it shouldn't be up to teachers to raise people's kids for them, but that it's better that the government does with stupid measures like this, right?

 

I'd argue that things like this only contribute to the idea that someone else besides the parents are responsible for raising their kids properly. Things like this only strip the accountability of the parents to do their job, and for them to assume that someone else will.

 

Further, his example was "education" in the school sense, but as we already agreed on earlier in the thread, it is most certainly not limited to school education, but to consumer education and transparency (since afterall a soda habit has to be allowed by the parents first, and they're far more likely than the kid is to place the kid's health over their desire to drink a sugary drink).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping you'd bring up FDR. Because, before he came along and totally screwed things up, we got a lovely glimpse of how great it was staying out of the way and letting the markets do their thing. Not just with a massive and crippling depression, but with the completely horrific and sub-human working conditions that preceded it in the decades prior. Ah yes, the good old days, when everyone was held accountable for their actions, (unless they had tons of money) and we could build our markets on the backs of immigrants and minorities living in fear. That's when men knew the meaning of work. I mean, really, really knew the meaning of work. Like, it's all they freaking knew.

 

C'mon man, you cannot blame the free market for the way things were 100 years ago. The attitudes of people were different then, and it's the attitudes of the people changing that has led to progress. There was no government that was going to stop people from being brutal the way they were before we all became "civilized".... And as I also said earlier, heroin use in some countries dropped despite it remianing legal, because people began to realize the dangers of it. So yes, a snake oil salesman could still take advantage of you (and still can to a certain extent), but it's when people realized what they were buying into that things changed.

 

If you want regulations, force them to be transparent, but no good law is gonig to stop someone who wants a soda who's become accustomed to drinking them. You want change, you change the attitudes of the people, or there will continue to be a demand for things you don't like, rather than the things you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 47, growing up in the 60s & 70s sodas were not uncommon, but not as prevalent as today. We drank milk, water, or koolaid and got the occassional soda as a treat. Most people my age do not drink a lot of soda, not because it wasn't available when we were kids but because it was seen as a treat and something special. Nobody really needed to tell us it was bad for us.

 

 

Today kids grow up eating out too much, being left in somebody else's care too often (other relatives, friends, parents of other kids) and generally develop bad habits due to nobody telling them "NO". Yes I understand one needs to pick their battles with children.

 

 

MrFancyPants story of the teacher giving the kids info is interesting. And I understand that him telling his son "Soda is bad for you" is ignored because he's dad.

 

Education, starting at home when the kids are young, is the critical thing. Bans on large sodas still seem like a knee jerk reaction.

 

PS Yes I know that the heavy advertising of things affects people, but not everybody. The same thing applies to all the techno gadgets like I mentioned before. The ads make everybody believe "if you don't have an iPhone (or other smart phone) you're a loser", yet millions have resisted getting one.

 

PPS Anybody been following the story about Disney not allowing unhealthy foods advertised on their TV channels? I'm fine with that, its the free market at work, not government intervention.

Edited by stevegrab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, my point was NOT that I think we should just "add this to the list of things we expect our teachers to take care of and call it a day".

 

It was:" My point here is that even a 12-year-old can self regulate if they truly understand. And that this took no laws to achieve."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, my point was NOT that I think we should just "add this to the list of things we expect our teachers to take care of and call it a day".

 

It was:" My point here is that even a 12-year-old can self regulate if they truly understand. And that this took no laws to achieve."

 

 

And I didn't mean to say parents are not doing their job, I haven't raised kids myself but do understand it is tough. It was nice to hear your story and see that a such a young person when presented with facts, could look past what they want and realize what is good for them. I have a nephew in his early 20s that is very heavy and I fear for their health long term because of poor choices to this point (and no desire to change his habits).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gatorade has high fructose corn syrup or other chemically generated artificial sweeteners in it. it loses my vote based on that immediately and puts it right in the category of soft drinks.

 

 

Just double checked the labels on my bottles of regular Gatorade and also the G2 version, and unless they are purposely breaking labelling laws, this is not true. They use primarily sucrose and dextrose as the sugars. There is no HFCS. As det said, pretty good to use for intra/post workout purposes, not neccessarily the "best" thing in the world, but in a time period where you actually want to induce an insulin response to sugar, it gets the job done.

 

In general, sugar water is sugar water. So the short answer is yes they're basically as bad. It does have electrolytes so it can be effective during sports, mind you. That said, as a formerly competitive cyclist, I also did some research into that sort of thing as well and Gatorade is about the worst among a bunch of products aimed at that because the others will mix in some protein and/or use forms of sugar that are less inclined to make you "bonk" (which basically what endurance athletes would call what happens when you take in a bunch of sugar, get a burst of energy, deplete all of it and end up possibly worse off than you where before you drank whatever it is you drank). Better products give a more sustained level of energy. I like Accelerade, personally. Of course, the hardcore purists are even off of that and doing things like coconut water.

 

Energy drinks are basically horrible for you. They're just coke with more caffeine and other stimulants. Mind you, my wife is quite suspicious of the b-vitamins and other things like that they say contribute to the energy boost because she's pretty certain that your body ignores them all in its rush to process the massive amount of sugar. As she's explained it to me, sugar spike trumps all when it comes to what your body deals with.

 

What I'm talking about, actually, are non-carbonated "juice" drinks. Things that masquerade as being healthy because they're "juice", not soda. But, if they're loaded with refined sugar, they're barely, if at all, better than sodas. And, again, if they have any vitamins, there's no saying how low grade those vitamins are to begin with (because they're most likely added, not food based) but then you've got the issue of your body completely ignoring them anyway in its rush to process all the sugar you just consumed.

 

 

Det - As you know from the weight loss forum, I've leveraged coconut water in drinks, but after further study found that there are no scientific studies backing up the claims of coconut water helping with hydration ,etc. It still has a good mix of electrolytes and B-Vitamins, but I no longer make it a point to have some on hand, only picking it up when it's on sale to add in to my shakes as I like the flavor it adds.

 

Now, your comments about bonking from Gatorade are likely from misuse - it is not a pre-workout/energy supplement, it is designed to replenish the body after strenuous exercise to replace the electrolytes, sodium and potassium lost through sweat. It is not designed or intended to provide an energy boost. Not saying it's good to just swig the stuff down all day long, but when used as it is intended, it gets the job done just fine. And they have their now "Series" line out with formulations meant for pre-workout "01-Prime" (has the B Vitamins, and carbs to fuel a workout), the intra workout products "02-Perform" (these are the traditional products - potassium, sodium, some carbs and electrolytes) and the post workout products "03-Recover" (these are the ones with protein and carbs in them).Now, I prefer mixing my one pre and post workout drinks rather than use the premade ones, but would use their stuff in a pinch, and do use the regular product on days that I play basketball, as we are going for near 2 hours.

 

As for the energy drinks, yup the extra sugars in them are not great, but with regards to the B-Vitamins, they are usually included in most pre-workout supplements (even those that are non-stimulant, ie dont have caffeine), along with some others like theanine and beta-alanine, and from anecdotal review, there is a definite energy boost. Not the same you got from stim-based supplements, but still a boost.

 

And for everyone else, what Det is talking about are things like Sunny Delight, Hi-C, etc. thatcan't even call themselves juice legally because they contain so little actual juice.

 

 

 

As to the point of this topic, I think the law as it is written is pretty lame, but certainly think a strong argument could be made for putting restrictions/regulations on the labelling of high sugar foods and where/how they can be advertised, similar to what is done with tobacco/alcohol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the sucrose dextrose mix in Gatorade is a lab created sweetener, not just sugar. it's processed crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone on record being as being a big Bloomburg supporter several times. I think he'd be the perfect presidential candidate.

 

With that said, I am sure somebody mentioned this, but don't have the time to read through six pages of replies.

 

I supported the cigarette thing as cigarettes effect other people's quality of life. This soda thing, though, rings of maddness. I'd be more in favor of a sin-tax on it (to help go towards medicade, medicare, etc) than banning certain sizes. But then, I'd support that with alcohol too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just double checked the labels on my bottles of regular Gatorade and also the G2 version, and unless they are purposely breaking labelling laws, this is not true. They use primarily sucrose and dextrose as the sugars. There is no HFCS. As det said, pretty good to use for intra/post workout purposes, not neccessarily the "best" thing in the world, but in a time period where you actually want to induce an insulin response to sugar, it gets the job done.

 

 

 

Det - As you know from the weight loss forum, I've leveraged coconut water in drinks, but after further study found that there are no scientific studies backing up the claims of coconut water helping with hydration ,etc. It still has a good mix of electrolytes and B-Vitamins, but I no longer make it a point to have some on hand, only picking it up when it's on sale to add in to my shakes as I like the flavor it adds.

 

Now, your comments about bonking from Gatorade are likely from misuse - it is not a pre-workout/energy supplement, it is designed to replenish the body after strenuous exercise to replace the electrolytes, sodium and potassium lost through sweat. It is not designed or intended to provide an energy boost. Not saying it's good to just swig the stuff down all day long, but when used as it is intended, it gets the job done just fine. And they have their now "Series" line out with formulations meant for pre-workout "01-Prime" (has the B Vitamins, and carbs to fuel a workout), the intra workout products "02-Perform" (these are the traditional products - potassium, sodium, some carbs and electrolytes) and the post workout products "03-Recover" (these are the ones with protein and carbs in them).Now, I prefer mixing my one pre and post workout drinks rather than use the premade ones, but would use their stuff in a pinch, and do use the regular product on days that I play basketball, as we are going for near 2 hours.

 

As for the energy drinks, yup the extra sugars in them are not great, but with regards to the B-Vitamins, they are usually included in most pre-workout supplements (even those that are non-stimulant, ie dont have caffeine), along with some others like theanine and beta-alanine, and from anecdotal review, there is a definite energy boost. Not the same you got from stim-based supplements, but still a boost.

 

And for everyone else, what Det is talking about are things like Sunny Delight, Hi-C, etc. thatcan't even call themselves juice legally because they contain so little actual juice.

 

 

 

As to the point of this topic, I think the law as it is written is pretty lame, but certainly think a strong argument could be made for putting restrictions/regulations on the labelling of high sugar foods and where/how they can be advertised, similar to what is done with tobacco/alcohol

 

I think the issue with Gatorade in terms of how it stacks up agaisnt others is that it's not as effective when you're out on the road for a 3-4 hour ride and can only carry so much stuff with you. That, if you're slamming gatorade and can keep slamming gatorade, then it's not going to be much of big deal. And that's fine when you're playing hoops and can have a cooler full of the stuff on the side lines. Products like Accelerade and Hammer Nutriotion, on the other hand, will provide you with more sustained energy without the spikes, which is key when you're carrying everything on your bike or in your jersey pockets. I also believe that part of the deal with these other products is the protein that, I believe, helps you keep from breaking down your own muscle on particularly long days, as I've been told happens after several hours of sustained effort.

 

That said, when I've been on a particularly hot ride and gone through whatever I brought (either because it was hotter than I expected or we just decided to add an extra loop onto the ride), I have stopped at a gas station when we were inside of 10 miles from home and picked up some Gatorade.

 

Also, the 3 stage thing that Gatorade is now doing is actually pretty old hat for sports nutirtion companies that serious endurance athletes have been using. Both the chews, gels, pre and post ride nutrtion has been on the market for about 10 years or so at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the additional info on sports drinks guys. For me the key is really all about sweating and being dehyrdated. When riding my motorcycle all day long (wearing full gear jackets, pants, helmet, etc.) in the heat I'll sweat quite a bit. I drink a lot of water (wear a 1.5L camel back and use it while riding) but will toss back a Gatorade at some stops to help refuel the electrolytes. Good to know it isn't really bad for me, but may not be the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most popular tailgate topic in eons is a 6 page thread on sodas. I guess that is where the tailgate is these days. :razz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for New York. Fat people cost us all money. A lot of money.

 

About 35% of Americans are considered obese, up from just 12% just 20 years ago. In 2003 alone, about $75 billion of health care costs were attributed to obesity - and about half that cost came from public funds. That figure is projected to be over $340 billion in the next 15 years.

 

"Education" is not the answer, at least not by itself, and neither is exercise. We need a fundamental shift in how the country eats, and that's not going to happen nibbling at the fringes (pun intended) with things like sin taxes. The "free market" will not fix this problem. Clearly more than a third of America is already incapable of self regulating. Due to the enormity of the problem (pun also intended) this is one of the rare instances where government may be the only actor with a broad enough reach to effectively address the issue. Perhaps "bans" are not the ideal tool but failing to act at all would be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marry your friend Leroy, Fine. Kill an unborn baby, fine. Drink a 17 ounce sugary drink, illegal.

 

If you people don't understand how screwed our country is based upon the thread existing no one can help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marry your friend Leroy, Fine. Kill an unborn baby, fine. Drink a 17 ounce sugary drink, illegal.

 

If you people don't understand how screwed our country is based upon the thread existing no one can help you.

 

Gay marriage doesn't cost me any money - if anything, it will result in more income tax revenue due to the "marriage penalty." Abortion doesn't cost me money - if anything, it reduces the cost of future public services for unwanted children. But more to the point, both the right to marry and the right reproductive choice are constitutionally protected rights. Being obese is not, which means the government is free to do whatever it wants as long the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

 

But more to the point, neither gay marriage nor abortion have anything to do with the country's growing obesity problem (pun intended, yet again). But thanks for weighing in (I'm on a roll... was that a pun within a pun?) on how best to address this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for New York. Fat people cost us all money. A lot of money.

 

About 35% of Americans are considered obese, up from just 12% just 20 years ago. In 2003 alone, about $75 billion of health care costs were attributed to obesity - and about half that cost came from public funds. That figure is projected to be over $340 billion in the next 15 years.

 

"Education" is not the answer, at least not by itself, and neither is exercise. We need a fundamental shift in how the country eats, and that's not going to happen nibbling at the fringes (pun intended) with things like sin taxes. The "free market" will not fix this problem. Clearly more than a third of America is already incapable of self regulating. Due to the enormity of the problem (pun also intended) this is one of the rare instances where government may be the only actor with a broad enough reach to effectively address the issue. Perhaps "bans" are not the ideal tool but failing to act at all would be worse.

 

 

Even with these very good points, I'm still mostly indifferent to the NY soda law rather than having much of a opinion either way. On a somewhat similar tangent, the healthy lunch program for public schools was voted down by the current congress several months ago, pimping libertarian ideals and how it's not a proper govt'l function. "The gubbment can't mandate putting healthier food in in gubbment lunches because it takes away our freedumb," is some seriously retarded rationale, regardless how bad the American obesity epidemic has become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am comfortable with letting the perpetually nonproductive die. I am comfortable stepping over bodies on the street until the dead collection squads round up the corpses. If you are not productive enough to afford health care, or if you are not in a network of folks who care enough about you to provide it for you, die. Continued existence is not a right, it is an achievement. Survival is for the productive. Nuturing of the nonproductive to another day of nonproduction, and with no realistic hope of future production is a course towards failure.

 

Now I don't have to concern myself with the bad habits of others. Simple. I neither need nor want a bunch of self-righteous nanny state folks deciding what is best for me and imposing their tyranical will on me for my own good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am comfortable with letting the perpetually nonproductive die. I am comfortable stepping over bodies on the street until the dead collection squads round up the corpses. If you are not productive enough to afford health care, or if you are not in a network of folks who care enough about you to provide it for you, die. Continued existence is not a right, it is an achievement. Survival is for the productive. Nuturing of the nonproductive to another day of nonproduction, and with no realistic hope of future production is a course towards failure.

 

Now I don't have to concern myself with the bad habits of others. Simple. I neither need nor want a bunch of self-righteous nanny state folks deciding what is best for me and imposing their tyranical will on me for my own good.

 

 

That's all fine and dandy if you completely ignore the point that these same people are escalating the cost of health care and causing my premiums to rise like a helium ballon. Substance and pragmatisim have to over-ride symbolism and philosophy at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all fine and dandy if you completely ignore the point that these same people are escalating the cost of health care and causing my premiums to rise like a helium ballon. Substance and pragmatisim have to over-ride symbolism and philosophy at some point.

 

 

I'm not ignoring the cost factor. I say sink no cost into them. I literally mean let them die. What entitles them to health care paid for by others? What natural law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Letting them die isn't going to happen. It doesn't happen in any civilized society. So, reality dictates we are going to have to come up with a better solution than keep the govt. out of it and let them die (and I'm not saying the NY soda law solves the problem, more so than saying we need more reasonable solutions that will almost certainly include a degree govt. intervention to mitigate the issue at hand).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not ignoring the cost factor. I say sink no cost into them. I literally mean let them die. What entitles them to health care paid for by others? What natural law?

 

 

What if those people are in your employer provided health insurance pool? That the clerk in your office happens to be 300 pounds, sucking down sodas, and is at risk for amputation due to adult onset diabetes?

 

It actually gives more credence to the topic of ending medical insurance pools, are you are being held to premiums that are inflated due to the choices of your coworkers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Letting them die isn't going to happen. It doesn't happen in any civilized society. So, reality dictates we are going to have to come up with a better solution than keep the govt. out of it and let them die (and I'm not saying the NY soda law solves the problem, more so than saying we need more reasonable solutions that will almost certainly include a degree govt. intervention to mitigate the issue at hand).

 

 

So government needs increasingly greater control as we slowly devolve, catering to the weak, the nonproductive, the dependant, a class that grows disproportionally being unconstrained by any natural laws,common sense, or personal judgement and sense of responsibility.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BP,

I'd fire 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.