The NY soda law

[detlef]

I'm all ears..........

 

And even if you do that generally, good luck proving that for any given person to a point where you could make it stick legally.

 

When you say "quite a while," do you mean decades? centuries? millenia?

 

cmon - the silly "millenia" stuff and political baiting is something I'd expect from a lot of people here, but you're usually above that BS, or so I thought. Anyway I didn't have an exact time frame in mind, but "decades" is closest. The big kickoff was probably FDR and it's largely been downhill from there. Obviously you could debate the specifics, but that would also get into yet another huddler political cat fight. No thx.

 

More or less. More like "let him lie in the bed he made." Not that I want him to die, but you have to draw the line somewhere and if you've proven beyond any reasonable doubt that his health issues are his fault and if he can't pay either........in fact I thought that was more or less where you were going w/this ie people can't or shouldn't have it both ways. Not meaning to put words in your mouth though. Anyway it's easy to come up with hypotheticals to make any viewpoint look bad/wrong and so it pretty pointless IMO. No solution will be a win for everyone.

 

I disagree. I don't mean I disagree that there are more people that need bailing out, but IMO it a large extent absolutely is about bailing people out who are too stupid/lazy/effed up/whatever and got themselves into the position of needing that bailing out...I think not just the number, but the % of people who fit that description has been on the climb for a long time (decades-ish, for the record).

 

Hyperbole and more semi-subtle baiting notwithstanding, yeah, it does. That said, I don't think simpler is necessarily better and it isn't about "simpler" anyway. It's about addressing the problem and drawing a line, and I think personal accountability, as much as can be reasonably proven, is that line. (PS for the record I think the soda law is dumb too. I do like the idea of heavier taxes on "bad diet stuff" though)

 

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.

 

And I really love your style. You don't want to actually let someone die, you simply don't want them to have medical treatments needed not to die if they can't afford it and it's their fault they got sick. I totally see your point.

 

(and this is from your follow-up post) In other words, you're sick and tired of defending someone's right to screw up (even though that's what you're doing) only to have to bail them out if they do (which you're not except for the fact that you don't want them to actually die in the streets unless it comes to that, in which case, screw it, let them die in the streets).

 

Dude, again, I am totally getting you here.

 

ETA: Sorry, I forgot, you wanted me to prove a link between sugar and chronic bad health. I honestly can't believe I have to do that, but here goes. Actually, try this: Do you have Firefox? It has that little google search box in the upper right corner. Type in "link between sugar and" Just stop there and see how many auto-fills you are offered.

Edited June 7, 2012 by detlef

[BeeR]

Dude, the only thing you appear to be getting is more of a d-bag by the minute. I thought you were interested in a rational discussion and approached it that way, but that was obviously a mistake on my part, as you instead opted for lame cracks and yet more baiting. Once again the girly hissy fit syndrome appears alive and well at thehuddle. Oh well.

 

For the 2d and final time, I'll pass on the political cat fight. I'm sure there are plenty here who will oblige though, so have fun. My FDR ref wasn't a shot at him per se FYI, just that you asked for a timeframe and that was my wag offhand. There's plenty of blame to be handed out to both conservatives and liberals and things weren't always better in the good old days. k?

 

lol @ "do Firefox search." FYI I can find links on the internet that say anything, including how we didn't really land on the moon, or it's really made of green cheese for that matter. PS and for the record, I wasn't denying (excessive) sugar is bad for you - for the 2d time, good luck proving that for any given person to a point where you could make it stick. But wait there I go again, trying to have a rational discussion. My bad.

Edited June 7, 2012 by BeeR

[detlef]

Dude, the only thing you appear to be getting is more of a d-bag by the minute. I thought you were interested in a rational discussion and approached it that way, but that was obviously a mistake on my part, as you instead opted for lame cracks and yet more baiting. Once again the girly hissy fit syndrome appears alive and well at thehuddle. Oh well.

 

For the 2d and final time, I'll pass on the political cat fight. I'm sure there are plenty here who will oblige though, so have fun. My FDR ref wasn't a shot at him per se FYI, just that you asked for a timeframe and that was my wag offhand. There's plenty of blame to be handed out to both conservatives and liberals and things weren't always better in the good old days. k?

 

lol @ "do Firefox search." FYI I can find links on the internet that say anything, including how we didn't really land on the moon, or it's really made of green cheese for that matter. PS and for the record, I wasn't denying (excessive) sugar is bad for you - for the 2d time, good luck proving that for any given person to a point where you could make it stick. But wait there I go again, trying to have a rational discussion. My bad.

 

If this is has been your version of attempting a "rational discussion" then I don't even know where to begin.

 

I think we're done here.

[electricrelish]

Dude, the only thing you appear to be getting is more of a d-bag by the minute. I thought you were interested in a rational discussion and approached it that way, but that was obviously a mistake on my part, as you instead opted for lame cracks and yet more baiting. Once again the girly hissy fit syndrome appears alive and well at thehuddle. Oh well.

 

For the 2d and final time, I'll pass on the political cat fight. I'm sure there are plenty here who will oblige though, so have fun. My FDR ref wasn't a shot at him per se FYI, just that you asked for a timeframe and that was my wag offhand. There's plenty of blame to be handed out to both conservatives and liberals and things weren't always better in the good old days. k?

 

lol @ "do Firefox search." FYI I can find links on the internet that say anything, including how we didn't really land on the moon, or it's really made of green cheese for that matter. PS and for the record, I wasn't denying (excessive) sugar is bad for you - for the 2d time, good luck proving that for any given person to a point where you could make it stick. But wait there I go again, trying to have a rational discussion. My bad.

 

We didn't land on the moon.

[tonorator]

Are you truly arguing that laws are not put in place to control the worst among us?

 

I'm simply pointing out that somewhat random restrictions on things like booze and smokes has gone a long way to make them taboo in our minds which, one could argue, has gone a long way to curb their abuse. Having the first lady tell you that being fat is bad will likely not have that same effect.

 

 

controlling and subliminally curbing abuse are 2 different things. we don't have a law against murder to curb the abusers of the right to life, it's a law that puts them away and removes them from society. raising our eduction while protecting all of our freedoms and individual liberties should be the goal of every public office holder vs. just passing more laws, especially laws that control cup sizes in a mcdonalds. if they all thought like you, we would have a barrage of new laws on the books to try and shape people into what you would like them to be. you want to address the high costs of health care and the abuse of the system? put all of your creative energies into the health care construct vs. trying to law-make your way to a supreme race that doesn't need it at all.

[tonorator]

surely detlef you would be for a law banning movie popcorn butter, correct? that is some of the worst stuff on the planet ... if you are for a cup size restriction, i don't see how you could then be against this. from there we can start to branch out to all kinds of unhealthy foods and habits, and i would think each one would need to be carefully examined by your administration to decide if it should be allowed to be in the hands of the public or not, right? i mean, you can't just be for this one and then stop, can you?

[Square]

Could we just make being really fat illegal? That way we don't have to worry about exactly how people got fat.

[detlef]

controlling and subliminally curbing abuse are 2 different things. we don't have a law against murder to curb the abusers of the right to life, it's a law that puts them away and removes them from society. raising our eduction while protecting all of our freedoms and individual liberties should be the goal of every public office holder vs. just passing more laws, especially laws that control cup sizes in a mcdonalds. if they all thought like you, we would have a barrage of new laws on the books to try and shape people into what you would like them to be. you want to address the high costs of health care and the abuse of the system? put all of your creative energies into the health care construct vs. trying to law-make your way to a supreme race that doesn't need it at all.

 

surely detlef you would be for a law banning movie popcorn butter, correct? that is some of the worst stuff on the planet ... if you are for a cup size restriction, i don't see how you could then be against this. from there we can start to branch out to all kinds of unhealthy foods and habits, and i would think each one would need to be carefully examined by your administration to decide if it should be allowed to be in the hands of the public or not, right? i mean, you can't just be for this one and then stop, can you?

 

You come off as if the status quo is working, but it's not.

 

Hell, everyone is so hell-bent against this sort of thing, they're prepared to ignore some basic facts. Caddyman suggested we just let the people figure it out for themselves the same way we did with smokes. Ignoring the fact that restrictions on smokes makes this 16 oz drink deal look like nothing. So, maybe, just maybe, the fact that smoking is in massive decline is actually a testimony of the effect restrictions along with education can have.

 

Ultimately, I don't think we can win the message battle against these industries and, honestly, it's not cost effective. Why spend gov't money getting into a propoganda war with someone who stands to lose a bunch of money if it doesn't go their way and has a lot of money to throw at ensuring it doesn't? But, of course, limiting how these companies are allowed to market themselves causes the same uproar as what Bloomberg is doing.

 

So what, besides getting into an ad spending war that we're currently losing, btw, and ultimately b!tching about the soaring cost of health care and the increased public tab of supporting those who need, but can't afford diabetes and heart disease care, do you suggest?

 

ETA: Oh, and if you see laws, not as something to deter behavior and simply as an legal bases to round up offenders and lock them up, then you're the last person who should be saying things like "I hope you never hold office", because that is stupid and reactionary beyond belief. It's like they say about locks. They're just there to keep honest people honest. So, perhaps I was a bit off when I said laws are about the worst among us, because they're really about the 2nd worst. There are three types: Those who are going to do the right thing, those who aren't, and those who need a little nudge in the right direction. The first don't need them, the second don't care, it's the third group that you're trying to keep out of jail by reminding them that certain behavior will result in punishment.

Edited June 7, 2012 by detlef

[stevegrab]

surely detlef you would be for a law banning movie popcorn butter, correct? that is some of the worst stuff on the planet ... if you are for a cup size restriction, i don't see how you could then be against this. from there we can start to branch out to all kinds of unhealthy foods and habits, and i would think each one would need to be carefully examined by your administration to decide if it should be allowed to be in the hands of the public or not, right? i mean, you can't just be for this one and then stop, can you?

 

How about restricting the size of those popcorns, and all the other snacks at the movie theatre, who needs a 5 gallon tub of popcorn?

 

Could we just make being really fat illegal? That way we don't have to worry about exactly how people got fat.

 

 

Or just charge them a higher rate for insurance because of their health risks (many already do that), like some do if you smoke.

 

 

New laws to outlaw certain products that MAY be inherently bad for you (or bad if you consume too much) is just idiotic. I just thank God I don't live in one of the places (cough NY & CA) that seem to think they are now in charge of regulating what is healthy.

[stevegrab]

You come off as if the status quo is working, but it's not.

 

Hell, everyone is so hell-bent against this sort of thing, they're prepared to ignore some basic facts. Caddyman suggested we just let the people figure it out for themselves the same way we did with smokes. Ignoring the fact that restrictions on smokes makes this 16 oz drink deal look like nothing. So, maybe, just maybe, the fact that smoking is in massive decline is actually a testimony of the effect restrictions along with education can have.

 

Ultimately, I don't think we can win the message battle against these industries and, honestly, it's not cost effective. Why spend gov't money getting into a propoganda war with someone who stands to lose a bunch of money if it doesn't go their way and has a lot of money to throw at ensuring it doesn't? But, of course, limiting how these companies are allowed to market themselves causes the same uproar as what Bloomberg is doing.

 

So what, besides getting into an ad spending war that we're currently losing, btw, and ultimately b!tching about the soaring cost of health care and the increased public tab of supporting those who need, but can't afford diabetes and heart disease care, do you suggest?

 

ETA: Oh, and if you see laws, not as something to deter behavior and simply as an legal bases to round up offenders and lock them up, then you're the last person who should be saying things like "I hope you never hold office", because that is stupid and reactionary beyond belief. It's like they say about locks. They're just there to keep honest people honest. So, perhaps I was a bit off when I said laws are about the worst among us, because they're really about the 2nd worst. There are three types: Those who are going to do the right thing, those who aren't, and those who need a little nudge in the right direction. The first don't need them, the second don't care, it's the third group that you're trying to keep out of jail by reminding them that certain behavior will result in punishment.

 

 

There really is no propoganda war by the soda industry trying to claim that their beverages are good for you (or not bad). Its just a ton of advertising. Combined with people who think water is "lame or boring" (or just like the rush of drinking sugary drinks.

 

Are we going to start campaigns to restrict what people can spend on all the tech gadgets being shoved down our throats in advertising? Does every person from 10-110 need a smart phone, tablet, GPS, etc. No, but they spend money they don't have, sign contracts for services they cannot afford and send their own personal finances further into debt. (Which really isn't good for our own economy despite all the additional consumer spending that is seen as good for the economy.)

 

You have a view that IMO is out of line with the majority, that many/most people think sodas are not bad for them, and that this is due to some campaign by the soda industry.

 

The problem is simply the stuff is available in abundant supply, and consumers want it. Restricting the size that can be sold is not going to affect either of those significantly. Then you add in the costs to enforce it and its an EPIC FAIL.

[detlef]

How about restricting the size of those popcorns, and all the other snacks at the movie theatre, who needs a 5 gallon tub of popcorn?

 

 

 

Or just charge them a higher rate for insurance because of their health risks (many already do that), like some do if you smoke.

 

 

New laws to outlaw certain products that MAY be inherently bad for you (or bad if you consume too much) is just idiotic. I just thank God I don't live in one of the places (cough NY & CA) that seem to think they are now in charge of regulating what is healthy.

 

Again, so besides doing nothing and complaining about higher health costs and such, what is your suggestion? Or are you simply inclined to just pretend it's not a problem as your "MAY be bad for you" illustrates.

 

BTW, here's a perfect example of where logic and information fails and laws win: DUI. I recall wondering why ads about not driving drunk focused on the fact that you'll go to jail if you get caught, not on the far worse possiblity of killing yourself or someone else. And then it dawned on me. Nobody gives a crap about that, because it won't happen to them. However, they sure as hell give a crap about the public disgrace of going to jail, losing their license, etc. So that's what got through to people, not telling them, "Hey, driving drunk is dangerous."

[detlef]

There really is no propoganda war by the soda industry trying to claim that their beverages are good for you (or not bad). Its just a ton of advertising. Combined with people who think water is "lame or boring" (or just like the rush of drinking sugary drinks.

 

Are we going to start campaigns to restrict what people can spend on all the tech gadgets being shoved down our throats in advertising? Does every person from 10-110 need a smart phone, tablet, GPS, etc. No, but they spend money they don't have, sign contracts for services they cannot afford and send their own personal finances further into debt. (Which really isn't good for our own economy despite all the additional consumer spending that is seen as good for the economy.)

 

You have a view that IMO is out of line with the majority, that many/most people think sodas are not bad for them, and that this is due to some campaign by the soda industry.

 

The problem is simply the stuff is available in abundant supply, and consumers want it. Restricting the size that can be sold is not going to affect either of those significantly. Then you add in the costs to enforce it and its an EPIC FAIL.

 

At some point I'd love to actually hear any suggestions you have to deal with a massive problem in this country that is getting worse.

 

Also, you say that I'm the only one who thinks people don't realize sodas are bad for them and then make a point of marginalizing the degree to which they are by saying "MAY be bad for you."

 

And, the soda campaign doesn't have to be about them being good for you (though plenty of drinks that are virtually as bad for you as soda because they're loaded with sugar and just happen to have some low-grade vitamins that you're body is undoubtedly going to ignore in it's rush to deal with the blood sugar spike you just inflicted upon it, are, in fact, sold you you as being "healthy"), it's just that they're everywhere, pushing themselves upon us. And, again, it's a propaganda battle that we are obviously losing. Telling people soda is bad apparently doesn't have the same effect as them telling them that it's delicious.

Edited June 7, 2012 by detlef

[SayItAintSoJoe]

How about restricting the size of those popcorns, and all the other snacks at the movie theatre, who needs a 5 gallon tub of popcorn?

 

 

 

 

I do!

 

I exercise regularly and watch what I eat but when I go to the movies…it’s on.

 

 

New laws to outlaw certain products that MAY be inherently bad for you (or bad if you consume too much) is just idiotic. I just thank God I don't live in one of the places (cough NY & CA) that seem to think they are now in charge of regulating what is healthy.

 

 

I agree. However, I do like laws that result in the consumer having the information about the products they are consuming. Ingredients, nutritional content, trans fat labels, etc. Give the consumer the information and let them decide.

[stevegrab]

detlef,

 

I don't have a suggestion for dealing with rising health costs, obesity, or the trend by many to drink a six pack of soda every day. I don't need to have those suggestions to realize that a law restricting the size of soda that can be sold is stupid. It doesn't address the problem, it doesn't really send the message "soda is bad", it just allows the mayor of NYC to control things more, and make him appear to be concerned about people's health.

 

I feel like I'm just :bang: and getting no result here. You think legislating things like this is good, I and many others think its stupid.It will be ineffective, cost money and generally be worthless.

 

If you're so in favor of this, I assume you have contacted your local city leaders and asked them to pass similar legislation. While you're at it maybe you can have them restrict the size of alcoholic beverage that can be sold, the fat/salt/sugar content of foods you sell, and numerous other things that will save all the people from their evil habits.

 

PS What about the giant propoganda campaign by the tech industries and consumer overspending, are we going to do anything about that?

[detlef]

detlef,

 

I don't have a suggestion for dealing with rising health costs, obesity, or the trend by many to drink a six pack of soda every day. I don't need to have those suggestions to realize that a law restricting the size of soda that can be sold is stupid. It doesn't address the problem, it doesn't really send the message "soda is bad", it just allows the mayor of NYC to control things more, and make him appear to be concerned about people's health.

 

I feel like I'm just :bang: and getting no result here. You think legislating things like this is good, I and many others think its stupid.It will be ineffective, cost money and generally be worthless.

 

If you're so in favor of this, I assume you have contacted your local city leaders and asked them to pass similar legislation. While you're at it maybe you can have them restrict the size of alcoholic beverage that can be sold, the fat/salt/sugar content of foods you sell, and numerous other things that will save all the people from their evil habits.

 

PS What about the giant propoganda campaign by the tech industries and consumer overspending, are we going to do anything about that?

 

For the record, this 16 oz ban would not be my first choice were I in charge. As you will notice, I only even made peace with the specific decision after I started this thread. That, mostly, I just feel like we're obviously not doing as good a job of making people respect the actual dangers of abusing products like soda as well as we have with smokes and booze, and that market-altering legislation has been shown to work in curbing abuse of those others. The fact that people here claim it is stupid for me to even compare sugar to those others shows the fundamental ignorance most have on the subject and why I don't have any confidence that we're just going to figure it out on our own. My wife is a trained nutriion consultant (she no longer practices, mind you). I spend a good deal of time researching personal nutrition. It is because of this that I know why it is highly ironic that people think it's silly to compare a soda to a smoke and then turn around and compare a soda to a snickers bar.

 

But, a quick primer: The reason why sodas, in particular are horrible for you is not just the sugar. It's the sugar along with the absence of anything else. Now, refined sugar is never really your friend, but if it's ingested along with fat or protein or fiber, then your body has to break down all of those and the flow of sugar into your blood is slowed. Pounding a soda by itself, sets off a taxing and highly harmful chain of events that begins with a massive blood sugar spike. It gets techncial from there, but massive blood sugar irregularities end up leading to horrible health consequences. In short (and this is a massive generalization) Fat does not make us fat. Sugar makes us fat. It's why the low-fat fad of the 70s and 80s was entirely ineffective and is actually partially to blame for the issues we have today. So, when I say I understand why they singled out sodas in particular, that is why. Still certainly random, but not as random as people think.

 

ETA on the primer: The above reason is why eating an orange is significantly better for you than drinking OJ. All the fiber and the pulp slow down the digestion process long enough to curb the flow of sugar (albeit a slightly better version of sugar) into your blood, thus not causing the panic attack of dealing with the sugar spike and allowing your body to also process the nutrients that the orange has). There's other reasons as well, but the sugar spike issue is big.

 

That said, I don't want the gov't to pay to educate these people without setting restrictions on what the industry can say to promote themselves. Seems like a very inefficient use of money that would likely dwarf the cost of capping drinks at 16oz. But I do support education in this matter. Rather unfortunate that is the answer in light of the fact that we're cutting spending on education at the same time as pusing standardized testing. Not sure where the money will come from to promote actual and truthful education on healthy eating, unless we go into the pockets of those who are selling unhealthy foods.

 

So, what I advocate would probably seem even more harsh to many. I would legislate actual and accurate warning labels for things like this and levy a tax on products like this that supported campaigns like those we have about smokes. Additionally, I would restrict advertising the same way we do with booze and smokes.

 

That's what I would do, but I've just basically come to peace with what NY is doing.

 

And, one more thing. If 16 oz is a silly line in the sand, it's a silly line in the sand for both sides. A silly restriction to place and an equally silly restriction to get riled up about.

Edited June 7, 2012 by detlef

[stevegrab]

I just don't think the law will be effective, and doesn't really send a message that sodas are bad. I'd be more in favor of packing info that educates the consumer.

 

 

I've yet to find or read enough info about the law to see how they address refills, etc. Heck, I can order a 16oz soda with no ice, and probably get more soda than the larger sizes when they are filled 50-75% with ice.

 

I also don't think it is the government's job to educate people on something as simple as "drinking too much carbonated sugar water isn't good for you". I really don't see how the average person wouldn't understand that, and I don't see anybody (even the soda idustry) trying to dispute. This isn't like cigarette companies trying to deny that their product causes cancer and other respritatory problems.

 

In the end I really don't care about the law, for one I'll almost never be in NYC so it won't affect me, second I don't drink that much soda, third a 16oz beverage is plenty (if I can get them to leave out some their required ice filler). But it concerns me that legislators think they have the right to restrict these things, and that some people like yourself defend them as being ok. What is next is a valid concern to me.

 

A question for you since you brought it up before and have a wife with knowledge plus have done your own research, are you saying that sport drinks like Gatorade are just as bad as having a soda? Or were you referring to the energy drinks (Monster, Red Bull)?

 

PS I'd like to see them ban fast food places from asking "you want fries / supersize that combo", and then asking you a second and third time. They are as much a part of the problem as the soda industry and the consumers who buy the stuff.

Edited June 7, 2012 by stevegrab

[Savage Beatings]

Fat people of all ages should just be aborted, for their own good, and the good of all society.

[Savage Beatings]

Wait a minute... I'm fat.

[Square]

Wait a minute... I'm fat.

Meh, you're from Minnesota. It's expected.

[whomper]

What was the official story on all of the rigors the Tobacco industry has gone through in the past 10 years that have eventually led to the cost of a pack of butts to double or triple ? Was it because of the strain on health care or the fact that if effects non smokers as well (secondhand smoke) ? Is there a correlation here ? Is this soda ban being brought up because of the cost of healthcare due to obesity and related medical conditions ? I havent read the official word on the ban and have only skimmed the thread

[detlef]

A question for you since you brought it up before and have a wife with knowledge plus have done your own research, are you saying that sport drinks like Gatorade are just as bad as having a soda? Or were you referring to the energy drinks (Monster, Red Bull)?

 

.

 

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.

Edited June 7, 2012 by detlef

[Hugh 0ne]

Once again the girly hissy fit syndrome appears alive and well at thehuddle.

 

Is that anything like the run to the mods and narc syndrome?

[stevegrab]

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.

 

 

Thanks. When I'm motorcycling in extreme heat and sweat a lot I drink either water or a Gatorade at breaks. With meals I try to stick with water, or lemonade and rarely drink sodas (mostly for the caffiene, don't like hot coffee when I'm not and iced tea isn't my thing, end up adding sugar.) And I never drink the energy drinks, but figured they were pretty bad for your. (And they smell / look pretty nasty too.)

 

Still not sure what classifes as the non carbonated juice drinks. We talking juice boxes, or other things that masquerade as fruit juice but contain very little actual fruit juice.

 

Back to my glass of water...

[tonorator]

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.

 

detlef - you are ignoring the question of where to stop. you have come to peace with the limit on cup sizes, but I don't understand how you can do that and then (a) stop there when there are so many other options to curb bad behaviors or ( want to invest more energy into finding other ways to curb bad behaviors. you saying you are for this cup size thing and then being content to just do nothing else makes no sense, unless you are just a casual crusader with no real convictions willing to type a lot just to stir things up .... hey, wait a minute there ...

 

as far as what to do about rising health care costs, charge overweight people higher premiums to remain covered. reward positive behavior with lower premiums. use our tax dollars to help in the education effort vs. law creation effort. tax sodas like you tax smokes. there are any number of options vs. banning the abilty to sell a bigger cup of stuff.

[gbpfan1231]

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.