The NY soda law

[bushwacked]

A tax attorney? Ok you've got more understanding and experience with the law than I do, but this case is hardly your specialty.

 

 

May not be is specialty, but it generally makes him an eggspurt in these parts. He knowledge of law is vastly superior to yours and mine (and you are using my post to pretend your an expert). I may not be an expert in every thread involving Science, but I know enough to see people think they know what's going on when they don't have a clue. Wiegie deals with it in econ threads all the time. That is what is happening here now.

Edited June 20, 2012 by bushwacked

[Pope Flick]

Detlef v Ice. If we get a flyby from mcboog we'll have word count records in this thread.

[Ice1]

So, you meant to say "processed meat". Thanks for sort of clearing that up.

 

At any rate, this is the last post I'm going to make here because chights about to get real in my world and I'm going to have to actually focus on things outside the huddle for a stretch. Well, they tell me there's a world outside of this place, and I guess I'm going to find out for myself.

 

At any rate, we could go 'round and 'round here but let me clear one thing up.

 

This whole tangent was started by you saying "the link between sugar intake and developing diabetes is a myth". A "myth". Like random rednecks and hikers see some big furry creature and the myth of bigfoot is born. That Scots see strange shapes in the misty waters of a lake and now there's a monster. A "myth".

 

Let's examine the "myth".

 

1) Before you do study 1, it makes sense. For however long there have been humans, the metabolic process involved mining whole food sources for proteins, fats, fiber, vitamins, and, yes the precious glucose that you speak so glowingly of. Now, within the last 50 or so years, we've changed that and changed it radically. Now, we have a habit of introducing highly concentrated doses of pure sugar, all at once. Combine that with the fact that we've learned that our body has a tendency to break down when systems are abused. If we roll right out of bed and immediately do heavy dead lifts and run suicides, it's not likely to end well. This is the metabolic equivalent. Everything is all peaceful in insulin land, and, all of a sudden, we're doing heavy dead lifts and suicides. So, we're not trying to prove something unbeliveable. We're not trying to prove that drinking 32 oz a day of spring water causes heart disease.

 

2) There are non-studies that go some way to confirm this. 100 years ago, we didn't consume much sugar and nobody had diabetes. Now we consume a ton more and a bunch of us do. Sure, there could be other factors, but it's a rather glaring correlation.

 

3) Then there are actual studies, even if they have limitations. You've got the nurses whrere those who consume soda regularly were nearly 2x as likely to develop type 2 than those who didn't. Again, who knows what other things they might have been doing differently, but there it is. There's the other study I showed that illustrated an increased likelihood of developing type 2 precursors among the same sort of sample set. Then there's the rats and HFCS and their increase in factors that we associate with diabetes, but what the hell, they're rats. And those are just the ones I found quickly.

 

4) Of course, the 100%, slam dunk, guilty in a court of law study that you want will likely never happen. For one simple reason. Given the very rational hypothesis, who the hell is going to sign up for it? For starters, you'd need to start with healhty subjects, right? So, you'd need to convince healthy people of the following. "Hey, we're about certain that consuming a ton of sodas is going to give you what has been shown to be a very bad and potentially lethal disease. But the only way we can make sure is to feed all of you the same diet and put on the same activityplan, but feed some of you tons of soda. Then, when half of you develop this horrible disease at a higher rate than the others, we'll know for sure."

 

"Um, can I be part of the control group?"

 

In fact, would it even be ethical to conduct such a study?

 

So, there's your "myth". Something that makes perfect sense and where we have an increasing number of studies that, while not perfect, are certainly circling the "truth" like so many sharks. And you're the dude floating in the water surrounded by those sharks saying "until one of you bites me, I don't believe you exist."

 

 

You really need to go to medical school.

 

There is no direct medical link getting diabetes from sugar. You can act like it and shout it from the rooftop if you desire but the reality is there is no direct link.

 

That said, from the AHA to ADA (American Diabetes Association) they will confirm this but they will all say one should monitor sugar intake.

 

Any leaps you are making that somehow Diabetes is contracted from sugar consumption is simply factually false.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Ice1

[Ice1]

 

Greg Abbott is a crook.

 

 

Opinions vary.

[bpwallace49]

I am looking forward to seeing detlef testify at the court hearings in new York about the silly soda law, followed be ice1.

[Jackass]

You really need to go to medical school.

 

There is no direct medical link getting diabetes from sugar. You can act like it and shout it from the rooftop if you desire but the reality is there is no direct link.

 

That said, from the AHA to ADA (American Diabetes Association) they will confirm this but they will all say one should monitor sugar intake.

 

Any leaps you are making that somehow Diabetes is contracted from sugar consumption is simply factually false.

 

 

 

I looked this up and you are correct. The American Diabetes Association does not confirm a link between sugar and diabetes. It looks like some doctors dispute this but either way, we can all agree that excessive sugar consumption causes obesity and obesity causes diabetes along with numerous health problems.

[stevegrab]

I looked this up and you are correct. The American Diabetes Association does not confirm a link between sugar and diabetes. It looks like some doctors dispute this but either way, we can all agree that excessive sugar consumption causes obesity and obesity causes diabetes along with numerous health problems.

 

 

Sure we can agree on that. But how much of that problem is due to consumption of soft drinks and how much will the NY soda law change that. Was talking with somebody at work and they echoed a common belief, if you buy a 64oz soda you're going to drink it all. If you get a 16oz are you really going to get 3 refills? Probably not, but its really hard to say. My belief is that people who want to drink a lot of soda are going to continue to do so, and this law isn't going to change that. Just like people who want to eat a very unhealthy diet (lots of fatty foods, lots of sugar, very few fruits and vegetables, lots of processed foods, etc) are going to do.

[Big John]

Sure we can agree on that. But how much of that problem is due to consumption of soft drinks and how much will the NY soda law change that. Was talking with somebody at work and they echoed a common belief, if you buy a 64oz soda you're going to drink it all. If you get a 16oz are you really going to get 3 refills? Probably not, but its really hard to say. My belief is that people who want to drink a lot of soda are going to continue to do so, and this law isn't going to change that. Just like people who want to eat a very unhealthy diet (lots of fatty foods, lots of sugar, very few fruits and vegetables, lots of processed foods, etc) are going to do.

 

Another point is that if you buy a 64-ounce soda, it is usually at a place where you can control the ice content, but at a restaurant, they almost always put way too much ice in the glass, so you need the refills just to get the needed amount of liquid refreshmant.

[bushwacked]

I am looking forward to seeing detlef testify at the court hearings in new York about the silly soda law, followed be ice1.

 

 

I know which one I would be betting money on perjuring himself. Although I'm not sure it's perjury if you sincerely think you know what your talking about when you don't.

[Ice1]

I looked this up and you are correct. The American Diabetes Association does not confirm a link between sugar and diabetes. It looks like some doctors dispute this but either way, we can all agree that excessive sugar consumption causes obesity and obesity causes diabetes along with numerous health problems.

 

 

To a degree I agree with this. Obesity is primarily caused by ingesting far more calories, regardless of type, than the body burns. No doubt empty sugar calories will contribute to obesity if not monitored by sedentary individuals. That said, you could drink gallons weekly of coke as an example and have zero weight issues provided you worked out and managed your calorie balance.

 

That said, I would think most fat people consume way too much sugar and do not exercise nearly enough. Obesity certainly is a factor in type 2 diabetes.

[lkirc]

Make everything legal and natural selection will take over. The undisiplined will die sooner and have fewer children. After a few generations, we would be healthier and smarter. Oh, and make people pay their own way.

 

That is all.....

[matt770]

The undisiplined will die sooner and have fewer children.

 

Quite the opposite is happening in this country.

[yo mama]

Make everything legal and natural selection will take over. The undisiplined will die sooner and have fewer children. After a few generations, we would be healthier and smarter. Oh, and make people pay their own way.

 

That is all.....

 

Well, if we made "everything" legal, that would include Obamacare, which means people will not die sooner, they will only have more children, and all of us will have higher taxes.

 

Nice job lkirc - you just wrecked America.

[detlef]

"Calories are Calories"

 

The results were remarkable. Put most simply, the fewer carbohydrates consumed, the more energy these weight-reduced people expended. On the very low-carbohydrate Atkins diet, there was virtually no metabolic adaptation to the weight loss. These subjects expended, on average, only 100 fewer calories a day than they did at their full weights. Eight of the 21 subjects expended more than they did at their full weights — the opposite of the predicted metabolic compensation.

 

On the very low-carbohydrate diet, Dr. Ludwig’s subjects expended 300 more calories a day than they did on the low-fat diet and 150 calories more than on the low-glycemic-index diet. As Dr. Ludwig explained, when the subjects were eating low-fat diets, they’d have to add an hour of moderate-intensity physical activity each day to expend as much energy as they would effortlessly on the very-low-carb diet. And this while consuming the same amount of calories. If the physical activity made them hungrier — a likely assumption — maintaining weight on the low-fat, high-carb diet would be even harder. Why does this speak to the very cause of obesity? One way to think about this is to consider weight-reduced subjects as “pre-obese.” They’re almost assuredly going to get fatter, and so they can be research stand-ins — perhaps the best we have — for those of us who are merely predisposed to get fat but haven’t done so yet and might take a few years or decades longer to do it.

 

 

In other words, sure 100 calories of protein has the same calories as 100 calories of carbs. However, one inspires a higher metabloic rate in your body and, thus, will better facilitate both weight loss and management.

[Ice1]

"Calories are Calories"

 

 

 

In other words, sure 100 calories of protein has the same calories as 100 calories of carbs. However, one inspires a higher metabloic rate in your body and, thus, will better facilitate both weight loss and management.

 

 

I don't think anyone would object that a balanced diet and good workout program is key. Yes, a Calorie is nothing more than a unit of heat used to express energy value in foods.

[detlef]

I don't think anyone would object that a balanced diet and good workout program is key. Yes, a Calorie is nothing more than a unit of heat used to express energy value in foods.

 

I think your inane attempts at oversimplifying the whole calorie deal sort of betrays your lack of understanding when it comes to this.

 

The study shows, quite clearly, that, while the calories may all add up the same, your body burns more if you're consuming the right kinds. So, your rush to break it down in a manner that any idiot can understand sort of ensures that everyone is going to be an idiot in this regard.

 

In other words, people like you need to shut up and go away because you lend credence to idiocy.

Edited July 3, 2012 by detlef

[Deathpig]

"Calories are Calories"

 

 

 

In other words, sure 100 calories of protein has the same calories as 100 calories of carbs. However, one inspires a higher metabloic rate in your body and, thus, will better facilitate both weight loss and management.

 

 

I want to take a moment and point out that the article you linked is another exhibit on why we shouldn't be basing civic laws on what we think we understand about obesity or health. You've just given us a study that pretty much torpedoes what everyone (including the AMA) believed was the way to 'being healthier' and 'losing weight'.

 

What will we discover in another ten years? I imagine what we'll discover is that we wasted a lot of time worrying about the wrong things right now.

[Jackass]

I want to take a moment and point out that the article you linked is another exhibit on why we shouldn't be basing civic laws on what we think we understand about obesity or health. You've just given us a study that pretty much torpedoes what everyone (including the AMA) believed was the way to 'being healthier' and 'losing weight'.

 

What will we discover in another ten years? I imagine what we'll discover is that we wasted a lot of time worrying about the wrong things right now.

 

 

So maybe heroin is good for you and shouldn't be against the law

[Ice1]

I think your inane attempts at oversimplifying the whole calorie deal sort of betrays your lack of understanding when it comes to this.

 

The study shows, quite clearly, that, while the calories may all add up the same, your body burns more if you're consuming the right kinds. So, your rush to break it down in a manner that any idiot can understand sort of ensures that everyone is going to be an idiot in this regard.

 

In other words, people like you need to shut up and go away because you lend credence to idiocy.

 

 

Which part of a balanced diet and good workout program didn't you understand? I get you are upset about something but how do you propose to change the definition of what a calorie is? 2+2=4.

 

You already know what is a calorie; What I find odd is you telling me to shut up for agreeing with you?

 

Oh well, have a great 4th!

[detlef]

Which part of a balanced diet and good workout program didn't you understand? I get you are upset about something but how do you propose to change the definition of what a calorie is? 2+2=4.

 

You already know what is a calorie; What I find odd is you telling me to shut up for agreeing with you?

 

Oh well, have a great 4th!

 

Dude.

 

OK, one more time. My issue with you from the outset was that you were oversimplifying the whole calorie thing. Please understand that there's a difference between breaking something down in terms that people can grasp and dumbing down something so far that it ceases to be accurate or useful.

 

Take your "it's all calories in vs calories out". In essence, that is true, but ironically that statement is only useful to someone who understands that it's not that simple. And that's obviously not the target demographic if you're trying to simplify things.

 

Here's why:

 

The natural extension of that statement is, "it's all about how many calories you eat and how much you do", right? That's how someone would interpret that. If they eat less and do more, they lose weight. That, apparently, it doesn't matter so much what they're eating, just so long as they're consuming less calories and being more active.

 

However, what smart people have been saying for some time and what that study I linked to showed, it's not that simple, maybe because our bodies are more complicated than a bunsen burner. What that study showed is that, if you take two people who are eating the same amount of calories, one eating mostly carbs, the other mostly proteins and fats, one maintains a higher metabolic rate (thus either loses more or gains less weight) than the other despite not being any more active.

 

So, while that is consistent with calories in calories out, it is only true if you also recognize that certain foods, while containing the same amount of calories as others will, in and of themselves, cause your body to burn more calories at rest than other foods. A very important detail that gets entirely ignored in "It's all calories in/ calories out"

 

So, sure, fixate on what a calorie technically means. Sure, it's a unit of heat and all that. But if you insist upon doing that, then perhaps we need to stop equating it to weight gain or loss because our bodies apparently aren't on board with the over-simplification you seem so attached to.

 

In other words, saying "it's all about calories in/calories out" leads people down an ineffective path of weight loss. It's also why Weight Watchers stays in business. So many repeat customers.

 

All of this is sort of a blow to the "let's just let people figure it out. Why do we need laws?" bit. Don't you think you should stop trying to promote flawed info if that's your stance?

Edited July 5, 2012 by detlef

[Ice1]

Dude, Are still you upset because Sugar doesn't cause diabetes and I called you on it?

 

What you are now apparently trying to discuss is Metabolism. I guess we could have a detailed discussion on topics such as:

 

Catabolism,

Anabolism,

Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR),

Effects of age on BMR,

Thyroxin production as it relates to BMR,

temperature,

exercise,

 

and Genetics which can slighter alter a persons metabolism. However, detailed discussions on these topics will not change what a calorie is any more than Bloomberg restricting what fluid ounces a container must be at a restaurant as he judges a hot dog eating contest on the 4th of July.

 

Never disputed the goodness of a balanced diet, exercise, or providing education to the masses. I do dispute the effectiveness of this stupid Bloomberg idea as a means to accomplishing anything.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Ice1

[gbpfan1231]

Dude, Are still you upset because Sugar doesn't cause diabetes and I called you on it?

 

What you are now apparently trying to discuss is Metabolism. I guess we could have a detailed discussion on topics such as:

 

Catabolism,

Anabolism,

Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR),

Effects of age on BMR,

Thyroxin production as it relates to BMR,

temperature,

exercise,

 

and Genetics which can slighter alter a persons metabolism. However, detailed discussions on these topics will not change what a calorie is any more than Bloomberg restricting what fluid ounces a container must be at a restaurant as he judges a hot dog eating contest on the 4th of July.

 

Never disputed the goodness of a balanced diet, exercise, or providing education to the masses. I do dispute the effectiveness of this stupid Bloomberg idea as a means to accomplishing anything.

 

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.

[detlef]

Dude, Are still you upset because Sugar doesn't cause diabetes and I called you on it?

 

What you are now apparently trying to discuss is Metabolism. I guess we could have a detailed discussion on topics such as:

 

Catabolism,

Anabolism,

Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR),

Effects of age on BMR,

Thyroxin production as it relates to BMR,

temperature,

exercise,

 

and Genetics which can slighter alter a persons metabolism. However, detailed discussions on these topics will not change what a calorie is any more than Bloomberg restricting what fluid ounces a container must be at a restaurant as he judges a hot dog eating contest on the 4th of July.

 

Never disputed the goodness of a balanced diet, exercise, or providing education to the masses. I do dispute the effectiveness of this stupid Bloomberg idea as a means to accomplishing anything.

 

Let's be clear. You said that the link between consuming too much sugar and getting diabetes was "a myth". Then, I linked to a number of studies published by Harvard and Yale that showed a very credible link between the two. Either through increased incidents of diabetes among people who consumed more sugary sodas than a control group or through the existence of diabetes markers found in the blood stream.

 

It is your choice whether you want to accept that but let's not pretend that "you called me on it".

 

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.

[detlef]

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.

 

Hopefully this time it's going to stick. Obviously it hasn't the dozen or so times prior that I've said it. I realize this is a random restriction. I don't know how I can be any clearer.

 

So, this means that 68 hot dogs or the contest where if you eat the 48 oz steak or any number of other things you might want to throw out would all qualify. So, can we both just save the trouble and get this out of the way. I recognize that volumes of soda larger than 16 oz is not the only bad thing you can ingest.

 

And, like I've said before, the manner that NY is going about dealing with, what I feel is a very big problem, would not be my first choice in tackling it.

[gbpfan1231]

Hopefully this time it's going to stick. Obviously it hasn't the dozen or so times prior that I've said it. I realize this is a random restriction. I don't know how I can be any clearer.

 

So, this means that 68 hot dogs or the contest where if you eat the 48 oz steak or any number of other things you might want to throw out would all qualify. So, can we both just save the trouble and get this out of the way. I recognize that volumes of soda larger than 16 oz is not the only bad thing you can ingest.

 

And, like I've said before, the manner that NY is going about dealing with, what I feel is a very big problem, would not be my first choice in tackling it.

 

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.