The NY soda law

[detlef]

So if I was dying of thirst and need liquids soda would not help?

 

Whatever, this "discussion" has gone on long enough. Saying the law is dumb and you can't legislate stupid is met with "But people don't know its bad for them, so by limiting the amount you can poor into a cup in some places we're helping."

 

I find it interesting that you come up with some very lengthy responses to my post, but the few times I've asked how you'd feel if NC (or Raleigh or whatever city your eateries are in) passed such a ban. Or others limiting the size of your servings, serving chips, size of alcoholic drinks etc. you never respond.

 

I really don't care, ban or restrict every "unhealthy' product in NYC, I'll probably never set foot in that place anyway so I don't really care. I just think it stupid, meaningless pandering. "Look at me, mayor or NYC, I'll save you all from your bad habits."

 

Now to go home and suck down several cold beers with my home made tacos.

 

Actually, I did. When you assumed that I'd be pushing for similar legislation in my home state and I said, I thought quite clearly, that this would not be my first choice of ways to attack the issue.

 

As far as how this ban would affect me, it wouldn't. We do not sell sodas in sizes larger than 16oz. Further, and this again assumes that you actually can grasp the concept that sodas are not, and should not be, put in the same category as things that actually have nutritional value, then I have nothing to worry about. The only things I sell that could be defined that way are booze (most of which are also healthier than soda anyway), and there's already restrictions in place on those.

 

And, considering the fact that I even qualified the "soda is valueless" with the fact that, I suppose in very extreme cases..., bit that you went straight to "if I were dying of thirst", then you're right, there's not much point in discussing this further. You seem hell bent on swaddling yourself in your lack of understanding of the one point that I'm actually still trying to make, and I believe I've made the rather luke warm nature of my endorsement of the specific manner in which NYC is attacking, what I feel is a very significant issue, quite clear.

Edited June 16, 2012 by detlef

[gbpfan1231]

The fact is this: this law is incredibly stupid and in my opinion anyone who supports it is nuts.

[Ice1]

The fact is this: this law is incredibly stupid and in my opinion anyone who supports it is nuts.

 

Pretty much.

 

Soda does not make one fat. Fat is always relative to calories. Anyone who knows approximately 3500 calories = 1 lb of body fat knows that if the body can burn 500 more calories per day than it takes in will lose one lb in 7 days.

 

Bloomberg is simply legislating stupidity trying to feebly raise awareness at a stupid cost. So a 6'4" 200 lb man in great shape can't order a big gulp? How stupid is that?

 

BTW detlef, making comments like meat is not bad for you but soda is bad is somewhat ridiculous. One can find many studies on both sides relating to meat and soda. Sugar in general is not bad for you, in fact you would be hard pressed to survive without it.

 

Coke may not be great but by the sugar is bad thought process a serving of coke is more healthy than a bottle of Vitamin Water. Of course Vitamin Water sounds very healthy..... Where is the outrage?

Edited June 16, 2012 by Ice1

[Big Country]

Coke may not be great but by the sugar is bad thought process a serving of coke is more healthy than a bottle of Vitamin Water. Of course Vitamin Water sounds very healthy..... Where is the outrage?

 

 

Vitamin Water Power C has 13 grams o sugar per serving (tons of varieties, I assumed you were not referring to the zero calorie, sugar free options)

 

Coca-Cola 8 fl. oz. has 27 grams of sugar, bascally double that of vitamin water

 

 

I believe on the Innernets we call this a FAIL

 

 

 

Now, I will give you a pass on the sugar is not bad for you statement, as I will assume you were making a play on semantics, as yes, pure raw sugar does have nutritional value, as well as the sugars naturally found in fruits and vegetables, but the refined/processed sugars which is what is found in these products does not. The nutritional content has been stripped out in the processing.

 

Sugar Facts

 

It is interesting to note that raw sugar is already refined. Only sugars from evaporated cane juice can be classified as truly “raw” or unrefined sugars (of the cane variety – sugars can come from other sources as well, such as beets and fruit). Once the cane juice crystals are harvested, they are washed, boiled, centrifuged, filtered, and dried. The purpose of this is to remove all of the original plant materials (stalk, fiber, etc.) to produce the pure sugar. This process removes most of the fiber and nutrients that existed in the original crystals. The sugar then becomes refined, and is now a food high in calories with little nutritional value.

 

Sugar is certainly not your enemy. Refined and processed sugars are! Consume a protein and a whole, unprocessed carbohydrate with every meal, and add healthy fats to your diet. If these meals happen to contain some natural honey or cane juice, don’t sweat it! Eat 4 – 5 servings of fruit and or vegetables each day – there are far too many healthy compounds in these foods to pass them up out of fear of the natural sugar contained within.

 

 

Refined sugar classified as a poison

 

Dr. Martin classified refined sugar as a poison because it has been depleted of its life forces, vitamins and minerals. "What is left consists of pure, refined carbohydrates. The body cannot utilize this refined starch and carbohydrate unless the depleted proteins, vitamins and minerals are present. Nature supplies these elements in each plant in quantities sufficient to metabolize the carbohydrate in that particular plant. There is no excess for other added carbohydrates. Incomplete carbohydrate metabolism results in the formation of 'toxic metabolite' such as pyruvic acid and abnormal sugars containing five carbon atoms. Pyruvic acid accumulates in the brain and nervous system and the abnormal sugars in the red blood cells. These toxic metabolites interfere with the respiration of the cells. They cannot get sufficient oxygen to survive and function normally. In time, some of the cells die. This interferes with the function of a part of the body and is the beginning of degenerative disease."2

Refined sugar is lethal when ingested by humans because it provides only that which nutritionists describe as "empty" or "naked" calories. It lacks the natural minerals which are present in the sugar beet or cane.

 

Edited June 16, 2012 by Big Country

[detlef]

Pretty much.

 

Soda does not make one fat. Fat is always relative to calories. Anyone who knows approximately 3500 calories = 1 lb of body fat knows that if the body can burn 500 more calories per day than it takes in will lose one lb in 7 days.

 

Bloomberg is simply legislating stupidity trying to feebly raise awareness at a stupid cost. So a 6'4" 200 lb man in great shape can't order a big gulp? How stupid is that?

 

BTW detlef, making comments like meat is not bad for you but soda is bad is somewhat ridiculous. One can find many studies on both sides relating to meat and soda. Sugar in general is not bad for you, in fact you would be hard pressed to survive without it.

 

Coke may not be great but by the sugar is bad thought process a serving of coke is more healthy than a bottle of Vitamin Water. Of course Vitamin Water sounds very healthy..... Where is the outrage?

 

It must be peaceful for everything to be as simple as you've convinced yourself it is.

 

Too bad it isn't actually true.

[TimC]

The Yankees have always been controlled by their Government with no independent thought ever allowed. They are just a bunch of sheep being led around by their weak shriveled up almost non-existant balls. Of course, as soon as anyone tries to leaves their collective stupidity, they are attacked and slaughtered by that very Government that is claiming to protect them from themselves. All of this has happened before and it will all happen again.

[Ice1]

Vitamin Water Power C has 13 grams o sugar per serving (tons of varieties, I assumed you were not referring to the zero calorie, sugar free options)

 

Coca-Cola 8 fl. oz. has 27 grams of sugar, bascally double that of vitamin water

 

 

I believe on the Innernets we call this a FAIL

 

 

 

You might want to learn the ingredients and study up a bit more. No doubt many do not get the Carb numbers or even understand the manufacturing labeling when they list serving size vs actual container size as work around so I won't call you out as it is a natural mistake.

 

I will just say that my son plays on a high level high school select summer baseball team owned by a professional baseball organization and we study fluids very closely. Being in the health industry on the business side for decades there are lots of tricks companies use to sell products.

 

Don't much care if you believe me, but if you are really interested talk to a few nutritionists or spend more time studying up as opposed to a few basic internet searches in an attempt to drive a point.

 

The reality is Bloomberg is targeting a very specific product which is foolish as there are countless examples of products out there that are no better and in fact worse than simply targeting volume.

 

The vitamin water example simply illustrates this quite well. Your link shows the labeling as it relates to an 8 oz serving size. Look closely at that bottle again. It is not 8 ounces which is why I listed that specific brand. BTW, we all know or should know all Carbohydrates have sugar. It is interesting when manufactures break out Carbohydrates and sugar which is a subtle point.

 

I do get you may believe my post was internet fail, but then again digging a bit deeper on brands and product type within brands may actually enlighten you so next time you won't be so quick to dismiss.

 

BTW, we also have a child that is highly sensitive to corn syrup and anyone that suffers this spends far more hours than you can probably imagine not only reading labels but actually understanding what information they are providing.

[bushwacked]

Yea BC you're wrong, because Ice1is privy to ingredients in vitamin water that the general public isn't. He won't tell you what they are, but he knows.

[Ice1]

It must be peaceful for everything to be as simple as you've convinced yourself it is.

 

Too bad it isn't actually true.

 

 

Just study more before making ridiculous claims. I get you may think it wise to attack restaurants because you think we should regulate individuals because they are thirsty and want to super size their drink often but it is a foolish way to educate anyone.

 

I find it sad when individuals think they know so much more than others that they feel the need to foolishly restrict them from themselves when they can simply buy a second drink in this case or get a free refill. That tact is stupid and certainly not effective.

 

Bloomberg would be better served to launch an educational campaign on the value of calorie management given this is the only way to stabilize weight and reduce obesity. That is and will always be up to the individual.

 

Thinking one can fix stupid through regulation on one of countless of products based on volume is; well it is stupid.

[Big John]

Just study more before making ridiculous claims. I get you may think it wise to attack restaurants because you think we should regulate individuals because they are thirsty and want to super size their drink often but it is a foolish way to educate anyone.

 

I find it sad when individuals think they know so much more than others that they feel the need to foolishly restrict them from themselves when they can simply buy a second drink in this case or get a free refill. That tact is stupid and certainly not effective.

 

Bloomberg would be better served to launch an educational campaign on the value of calorie management given this is the only way to stabilize weight and reduce obesity. That is and will always be up to the individual.

 

Thinking one can fix stupid through regulation on one of countless of products based on volume is; well it is stupid.

 

He owns a couple restaurants.

[Ice1]

Yea BC you're wrong, because Ice1is privy to ingredients in vitamin water that the general public isn't. He won't tell you what they are, but he knows.

 

 

As usual, you have missed the point entirely. It is but one product of countless products on the market but if you really believe the government should regulate a simple serving size of one then have at it.

 

BTW, anyone can find the ingredients so it is not something I am privy to at anyone's expense. This particular product is extremely high in crystalline fructose and the reason it is coming under more fire these days as it must be metabolized, like all fructose by the liver as opposed to glucose which metabolizes at a cell level.

 

The difference between HFCS and crystalline fructose is HFCS can be a 50-50 split between fructose and glucose vs 99.5% fructose for crystalline fructose.

 

Not sure that helps you but it is a reason Vitamin Water is a product our athletes do not use on game days.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Ice1

[Ice1]

He owns a couple restaurants.

 

 

Like that make any difference. I am not questioning his business acumen at all. In fact I hope his restaurants are wildly successful.

[Big John]

Yea BC you're wrong, because Ice1is privy to ingredients in vitamin water that the general public isn't. He won't tell you what they are, but he knows.

 

 

BC on weight loss

[bushwacked]

I get you may think it wise to attack restaurants

 

 

He owns a couple restaurants.

 

 

Like that make any difference.

 

 

[detlef]

Just study more before making ridiculous claims. I get you may think it wise to attack restaurants because you think we should regulate individuals because they are thirsty and want to super size their drink often but it is a foolish way to educate anyone.

 

I find it sad when individuals think they know so much more than others that they feel the need to foolishly restrict them from themselves when they can simply buy a second drink in this case or get a free refill. That tact is stupid and certainly not effective.

 

Bloomberg would be better served to launch an educational campaign on the value of calorie management given this is the only way to stabilize weight and reduce obesity. That is and will always be up to the individual.

 

Thinking one can fix stupid through regulation on one of countless of products based on volume is; well it is stupid.

 

Like I've said a number of times, stick with the bit about how you can't fix stupid rather than showing how little you actually know about nutrition.

 

1) Now, I'm not going to begin by defending Vitamin Water because I feel that it is one of the "fake healthy" drinks that I referred to when talking to someone else in this thread much earlier. However, you're still wrong about the Coke v Vitamin water. Even if you ignore the sneaky bit about there being 2 servings in one 16 oz bottle, there's still a gram less of sugar in a 16 oz bottle of it than there is in an 8 oz bottle of coke. Again, I still believe that product is crap, but whatever.

 

2) Your bit about "we need sugar to survive" is basically false. We need carbs and, yes, at a certain level, they're the same thing. But you can (and should) get all the "sugar" your body needs to survive from whole foods. Besides the obvious things like whole grains (which, btw, I think are generally overrated from a health standpoint) and fruits, there's also carbs to be found in veggies. So, if you want to be needlessly literal, I suppose you might have to replace the "vital sugars" you're getting from soda with another serving of veggies. But even that is even only the case if you couldn't stand to lose a few lbs.

 

3) But the real doozy is "it's really simple, it's calories in vs calories out". Give that one a try. Pound tons of soda, but eat little enough of actual food so that your calories in are less than your calories out. And I'll go ahead and start the "how soon does Ice end up in the hospital" pool. (or the, "how soon does Ice binge on 3 large pizzas" pool because your body will be craving food and you'll just be feeding it sugar). The inanely stupid "it's all about calroes in vs calories out" is why we, as a whole, are so effing bad at managing our weight, because idiots are eating plain rice cakes and crap like that, figuring it's better than a handful of nuts because it has less calories. And they wonder why they're still a fat-ass months later.

 

It's quite clear you have no idea what you're talking about. So, just stick with the bit about 16oz being random, because that remains a very, very good argument.

Edited June 16, 2012 by detlef

[gbpfan1231]

Any chance Bloomberg could regulate the volume of words in Detlef's posts? Not sure anyone would be against that???

 

I am just razzing.

[Deathpig]

3) But the real doozy is "it's really simple, it's calories in vs calories out". Give that one a try. Pound tons of soda, but eat little enough of actual food so that your calories in are less than your calories out. And I'll go ahead and start the "how soon does Ice end up in the hospital" pool. (or the, "how soon does Ice binge on 3 large pizzas" pool because your body will be craving food and you'll just be feeding it sugar). The inanely stupid "it's all about calroes in vs calories out" is why we, as a whole, are so effing bad at managing our weight, because idiots are eating plain rice cakes and crap like that, figuring it's better than a handful of nuts because it has less calories. And they wonder why they're still a fat-ass months later.

 

 

 

Twinkie diet worked.

[detlef]

Twinkie diet worked.

 

A few questions:

 

Dude is a nutrition professor? And he had 27 lbs to drop?

 

What's his body fat now after this amazing diet? Oh, here it is:

 

Haub's body fat dropped from 33.4 to 24.9 percent. This posed the question: What matters more for weight loss, the quantity or quality of calories?

 

25% isn't bad, if you're a woman. But, assuming he's less than 60, 25% pretty bad. Well into the "overfat" category. And, again, this is a nutrtion professor. A dude whose body was 1/3 fat before he went on a diet.

 

Is he healthy? Or does he just weigh less?

 

By the way, dude answered his own question:

 

"That's where the head scratching comes," Haub said. "What does that mean? Does that mean I'm healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we're missing something?"

 

Ding Ding Ding!

 

We're stupid and lazy, so we want someone to just break things down for us in the simplest possible terms. That goes for BMI, calorie counting, and thinking cholesterol numbers are the end all, be all.

[Big Country]

You might want to learn the ingredients and study up a bit more. No doubt many do not get the Carb numbers or even understand the manufacturing labeling when they list serving size vs actual container size as work around so I won't call you out as it is a natural mistake.

 

 

The numbers I quoted are adjusted for serving size, so that we are comparing apples to apples. Both products have a serving size of 8 fluid ozs. So, yes, with my limited mathematical capabilities, I am keenly aware that a 16 oz. bottle of Vitamin Water, with it's clearly stated 2 servings on the label, has 26 grams of sugar in it if I were to consume the whole thing. Now, and I know this may be reaching the upper bounds of my brains ability to multiply, I can also figure that if I consume a 16 oz. bottle of coca-cola (egads, the same size as that bottle of Vitamin Water), which also clearly states it is 2 servings, has 54 grams of sugar in it. Either way, it is still double the sugar in Vitamin Water.

 

Now, also note, if you are still with me, that no where have I ever tried to claim anything about the ingredients in either product, I was merely replying to your claim about sugar content, which is what the conversation as about, and that VW was worse that Coca-Cola. I also was addressing your vague claim about the neccessity of sugar in the diet. Yes, natural sugars can and should be included as part of a diet, the processed stuff in most things readily available on the grocery store shelve, which have been processed and stripped of hteir nutritional value, not so much and it should be limited.

 

Also, in researching some of this, one thing I learned about HFCS is just how wide a range it can be in terms of the percentage fructose used from I believe 42% was the low I saw to 90%, though there have been claims of even as high as 95% fructose.

 

 

Now, all I will say further is that I either misinterpreted your statement about the sugar of VW and Coke, as the discussion was on quantity of sugar in the diet vs. the type of sugar. But, I do want to thank you for bringing some points that I am going to study even further regarding sugar types etc. to try and expand on what I know of this area - just wish the scientists would slow down on how quickly they can develop some of ths stuff so there is time to keep up with it all.

 

Bloomberg would be better served to launch an educational campaign on the value of calorie management given this is the only way to stabilize weight and reduce obesity. That is and will always be up to the individual.

 

Now ICE - I 100% agree with the above.

[Ice1]

The numbers I quoted are adjusted for serving size, so that we are comparing apples to apples. Both products have a serving size of 8 fluid ozs. So, yes, with my limited mathematical capabilities, I am keenly aware that a 16 oz. bottle of Vitamin Water, with it's clearly stated 2 servings on the label, has 26 grams of sugar in it if I were to consume the whole thing. Now, and I know this may be reaching the upper bounds of my brains ability to multiply, I can also figure that if I consume a 16 oz. bottle of coca-cola (egads, the same size as that bottle of Vitamin Water), which also clearly states it is 2 servings, has 54 grams of sugar in it. Either way, it is still double the sugar in Vitamin Water.

 

 

No sense in arguing calorie science with detlef as he apparently doesn't get it but I would I like to clear up my point on Vitamin Water since I don't think you understand what I was saying.

 

It seems Vitamin Water breaks out sugar from Carbohydrates on their packaging and frankly it is misleading. The active Carbohydrate in Vitamin Water is Crystalline Fructose NOT HFCS. Just so you know, crystalline fructose is a carbohydrate that is roughly 99.5% - 99.9% Fructose.

 

Fructose is sugar so in effect the real amount of sugar in the drink is in effect double what you are stating. Further, this particular sugar is not metabolized at a basic cell level but is metabolized by the liver. This is why there is more and more study on the long term health effects of the liver. Science is obviously still ongoing on this product that has now been around for approx. 2 decades. While Glucose is a primary body fuel, Fructose is considered by many in medicine the real bad sugar.

 

By definition all carbohydrates contain sugar. The percentages certainly can change but to be clear crystalline fructose is a carbohydrate that is 99.5% sugar.

 

The example really goes to show the stupidity of Bloomberg's idea given he is not educating anyone and is only regulating one thing which has no hope of being effective in the first place. The other point is that even with the highly regulated food industry there are plenty of ways to technically list ingredients that can be quite misleading as is the case with Vitamin Water which basically looks to have the about the same sugar content as coke even though many think it is 50% like you are stating. At any rate, that is how I read the label.

 

On a side note, I think Vitamin Water is a coke brand. Not sure this company really makes any products that are for the health minded individual. People that love sugar are crazy about the product.

 

Me, I have a caffeine problem and am addicted to Starbucks.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Ice1

[detlef]

No sense in arguing calorie science with detlef as he apparently doesn't get it

 

Whatever you say, cupcake.

[Big Country]

No sense in arguing calorie science with detlef as he apparently doesn't get it but I would I like to clear up my point on Vitamin Water since I don't think you understand what I was saying.

 

It seems Vitamin Water breaks out sugar from Carbohydrates on their packaging and frankly it is misleading. The active Carbohydrate in Vitamin Water is Crystalline Fructose NOT HFCS. Just so you know, crystalline fructose is a carbohydrate that is roughly 99.5% - 99.9% Fructose.

 

Fructose is sugar so in effect the real amount of sugar in the drink is in effect double what you are stating. Further, this particular sugar is not metabolized at a basic cell level but is metabolized by the liver. This is why there is more and more study on the long term health effects of the liver. Science is obviously still ongoing on this product that has now been around for approx. 2 decades. While Glucose is a primary body fuel, Fructose is considered by many in medicine the real bad sugar.

 

By definition all carbohydrates contain sugar. The percentages certainly can change but to be clear crystalline fructose is a carbohydrate that is 99.5% sugar.

 

The example really goes to show the stupidity of Bloomberg's idea given he is not educating anyone and is only regulating one thing which has no hope of being effective in the first place. The other point is that even with the highly regulated food industry there are plenty of ways to technically list ingredients that can be quite misleading as is the case with Vitamin Water which basically looks to have the about the same sugar content as coke even though many think it is 50% like you are stating. At any rate, that is how I read the label.

 

On a side note, I think Vitamin Water is a coke brand. Not sure this company really makes any products that are for the health minded individual. People that love sugar are crazy about the product.

 

Me, I have a caffeine problem and am addicted to Starbucks.

 

 

I'll try and make this not semantics, but VW does not contain double the stated sugar. It has 13g of sugar. The difference is the percentage of that sugar that is fructose vs something else such as glucose. So, if Coca-Cola did use a HFCS that was a 50-50 fructose/glucose composition, then it would contain a similar amount of fructose, but the coca-cola still has twice the amount of sugar as the VW. I'll link to an article below where one of the commenters mentions that the grade of HFCS supposedly in use by the big soda producers is supposed to be 55% fructose, but a test done by USC found that the content was closer to 65% (though the commenter did not provide a link to the study).

 

Regarding the labelling, I'm pretty sure it is FDA regulated that sugar content be separated out, as well as fiber, in terms of breaking out the carb content of packaged products.

 

Is Fructose Bad For You? - Harvard Medical School Article

 

A few selected quotes from the article, and also the comment noted above:

 

Virtually every cell in the body can use glucose for energy. In contrast, only liver cells break down fructose. What happens to fructose inside liver cells is complicated. One of the end products is triglyceride, a form of fat. Uric acid and free radicals are also formed.

None of this is good. Triglycerides can build up in liver cells and damage liver function. Triglycerides released into the bloodstream can contribute to the growth of fat-filled plaque inside artery walls. Free radicals (also called reactive oxygen species) can damage cell structures, enzymes, and even genes. Uric acid can turn off production of nitric oxide, a substance that helps protect artery walls from damage. Another effect of high fructose intake is insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes.

 

 

 

Experts still have a long way to go to connect the dots between fructose and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Higher intakes of fructose are associated with these conditions, but clinical trials have yet to show that it causes them. There are plenty of reasons to avoid sugary drinks and foods with added sugar, like empty calories, weight gain, and blood sugar swings.

 

And the commenter noted above:

 

My google alert for HFCS picked up your article. The thrust is correct, but you have mistated some facts. There is no sucrose in corn. If there were, the CRA would have had an easy time making a lovely sweetener. Corn starch is pure glucose. It took a synthetic enzyme, glucose isomerase, and some nifty technology before the CRA could produce HFCS.

Also, HFCS is not the same as sugar for this reason.

There is only one sucrose. You can throw a sugar bowl against the wall and it will still be 50%fructose:50% glucose. This is not the same with HFCS. HFCS exists in different grades, denoted by the percentage fructose. The

CRA claims that the grades used are HFCS-42 (42% fructose), and HFCS-55 which is used by Big Soda. However, last year USC researchers assayed locally obtained bottled soda and found that three national brands had 65% fructose. Seems like the CRA is monkeying with the formula.

It gets worse. Cornsweet90 a product of ADM is HFCS-90. This intensely sweet HFCS is used for low-cal, low-fat

products. Why? The same sweeteness can be imparted with fewer calories. Sounds like a caloric bargain until you realize that your’e getting a bolus of extra fructose your

liver doesn’t need. Finally, crystalline fructose, now used in beverages like “Vitamin Water” is not

fructose gently extracted from fruits or vegetables; it is crystallized high grade HFCS. After extensive column chromatography the upper limits of HFCS used to be 90% fructose. But I just read a product blurb on a Chinese corn refiner’s website and they boast 95% fructose. Wonderful.. Now consider Dr. Lustig’s preaching about the excess fructose we have been ingesting the last three decades. Sure, sucrose, aka table sugar, is not good for you, but at least you know what you are getting. HFCS is a black box. The fructose:glucose ratio has been maniupulated by the CRA. So when you read the ingredient “HFCS” on the box or bottle, you have no idea what you are getting in terms of fructose. Sadly, your liver does.

 

 

ICE - I think most of this agrees with your points, and I know I am just splitting hairs with your assertion that somehow agram of sugar does not equal a gram of sugar. Thank you for pushing me to further my knowledge in this area. It's something that interests me and I've learned quite a bit from the chatter.

[Ice1]

BC,

 

I agree it is an interesting topic.

 

The original point centers on the fact that products like Vitamin Water's derive 100% of their calories from sugar regardless of type of sugar. The labeling is obviously viewed as misleading which is the reason Coke is being sued on this product.

 

No telling how the courts will ultimately rule but educating the populace on ingredients and calories is far more effective than telling the populace they can order a 20 oz bottle of this product at a restaurant but then regulate a serving size to 16 oz of coke. (My personal take is coke will prevail quite easily.)

 

It make no sense what Bloomberg is doing. Next up cake, this sugary substance must be outlawed to protect people from themselves.

 

None of these products will kill you and all can be enjoyable. The body burns off sugar as a fuel source. Obviously, if a person decides to ingest massive amounts of excesses calories they will get fat. This is no surprise but then again forcing the public to limit one single product to 16 ounces in one public location is about as effective as killing one single worker ant in an ant pile. No doubt moderation is key, but the government attempting to force moderation in one drink is crazy. Obviously, this is easy for Bloomberg but moderating sugar in this manner? Really.....

 

Politicians are as stupid as they come. If the game is knowledge, then force manufactures to label products based on container size not some arbitrary serving size. (Doubt this happens)

 

That said if one drinks 3500 calories and this represents 100% in excess of what they burn then they will gain one pound in body weight. It makes no difference if it is coke, milk, beer, or orange juice. Regulating a specific drink in one location based on serving size is foolish and anyone that buys this argument is simply not thinking past some ridiculous big brother psychological disorder. Don't these advocates realize people can just order two if they want the short term energy boost or caffeine jolt found in Mountain Dew or Coke for that matter.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Ice1

[Jackass]

Don't these advocates realize people can just order two if they want the short term energy boost or caffeine jolt found in Mountain Dew or Coke for that matter.

 

 

True but it would cost a lot more. It basically operates as a tax.

[Ice1]

True but it would cost a lot more. It basically operates as a tax.

 

 

Not really, many would simply sell a never ending supply in a 16 oz cup so refills would be on demand. This is nothing more than sham politics trying to regulate grains of sugar. It is like trying to regulate grains of sand on the beach.

 

Of course New York City's quest to have the nations highest taxes is never ending so there could be some truth to that.