The Half Elf wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 12:15:Are you reading the actual ingredients or are you looking at the nutrition label.
Serious question/suggestion.
Why don't we just have a sugar/high fructose corn syrup tax instead? As I was surprised the other day reading the label on milk and seeing sugar in it.
bigspender wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 20:54:
The problem with a lot of the food studies is that they are funded by the people that sell the product. It's annoying and time consuming, but when you go into the studies, it becomes pretty clear that they are designed to mislead.
Verno wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 12:52:jdreyer wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 12:35:
The McDougall program is essentially the same as Ornish and Esselstein, and so is the reasoning: even moderate amounts of fat and cholesterol lead over time to heart disease and cancer. These basically vegan diets have been shown to be best at preventing these illnesses over 30 year longitudinal studies.
No, your body creates a lot of that "poison" itself. In much larger amounts than you consume. It is important to regulate how much fat you consume, particularly foods with trans fats but dietary cholesterol like eggs is relatively unimportant by comparison. For diabetics it is a concern, not the average person. To be honest I'm surprised to hear that still being repeated, it is considered outdated thinking by every nutrionist and doctor I know.Because humans are genetically progammed to seek out these sweet and oily foods, and higher prices are a disincentive. Also, the money can be used for the subsidies.
I don't disagree that people seek out sodium/sugar whenever possible but I don't think taxation is the answer. First of all good luck implementing it and second it gives the opposition an easy trigger point and PR strategy. I think we can find some money to subsidize healthy foods, the government has more than enough inefficiency to address.
Verno wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 12:52:jdreyer wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 12:35:
The McDougall program is essentially the same as Ornish and Esselstein, and so is the reasoning: even moderate amounts of fat and cholesterol lead over time to heart disease and cancer. These basically vegan diets have been shown to be best at preventing these illnesses over 30 year longitudinal studies.
No, your body creates a lot of that "poison" itself. In much larger amounts than you consume. It is important to regulate how much fat you consume, particularly foods with trans fats but dietary cholesterol like eggs is relatively unimportant by comparison. For diabetics it is a concern, not the average person. To be honest I'm surprised to hear that still being repeated, it is considered outdated thinking by every nutrionist and doctor I know.
Because humans are genetically progammed to seek out these sweet and oily foods, and higher prices are a disincentive. Also, the money can be used for the subsidies.
I don't disagree that people seek out sodium/sugar whenever possible but I don't think taxation is the answer. First of all good luck implementing it and second it gives the opposition an easy trigger point and PR strategy. I think we can find some money to subsidize healthy foods, the government has more than enough inefficiency to address.
jdreyer wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 12:35:
The McDougall program is essentially the same as Ornish and Esselstein, and so is the reasoning: even moderate amounts of fat and cholesterol lead over time to heart disease and cancer. These basically vegan diets have been shown to be best at preventing these illnesses over 30 year longitudinal studies.
Because humans are genetically progammed to seek out these sweet and oily foods, and higher prices are a disincentive. Also, the money can be used for the subsidies.
Verno wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 08:54:The McDougall program is essentially the same as Ornish and Esselstein, and so is the reasoning: even moderate amounts of fat and cholesterol lead over time to heart disease and cancer. These basically vegan diets have been shown to be best at preventing these illnesses over 30 year longitudinal studies.bigspender wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 00:03:
This doctor has personally cured some 6000 peoples obesity, plus hundreds of thousands more that have applied his methods.
He speaks a little about 'the system' which keeps people sick and obese in this presentation, it's fairly interesting.
I know anecdotes don't count for much, but he's right on the average life expactancy and still working (instead of dying) which he puts down to his lifestyle of stuffing your face with the right foods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWavdmw3rgw
The list of disallowed foods is hilarious, eggs are bad again everyone. What an absurd diet, absolute nonsense and totally unsustainable for most people. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me or not. Also be very careful when talking about "curing" people of things.
Because humans are genetically progammed to seek out these sweet and oily foods, and higher prices are a disincentive. Also, the money can be used for the subsidies.1. Taxes on soda, candy, and chips are one part of a multi-prong strategy to encourage healthy eating. They are an important, but not a magic bullet.
Why do we need to do this at all? Why not just subsidize healthy foods?
Mr. Tact wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 11:17:In the case of Cook County (this tax wasn't enacted at the city level, it's a county-level tax) soda tax there was no desire to improve the health of the citizens of the county. Only the health of the county's bottom line. The first thing Toni Preckwinkle said after the tax was repealed was there would be across-the-board cuts coming, as the county was (if I remember the report from news radio) expecting $200m from the tax.
I'm not sure if soda taxes are a good idea or not.
Verno wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 08:54:bigspender wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 00:03:
This doctor has personally cured some 6000 peoples obesity, plus hundreds of thousands more that have applied his methods.
He speaks a little about 'the system' which keeps people sick and obese in this presentation, it's fairly interesting.
I know anecdotes don't count for much, but he's right on the average life expactancy and still working (instead of dying) which he puts down to his lifestyle of stuffing your face with the right foods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWavdmw3rgw
The list of disallowed foods is hilarious, eggs are bad again everyone. What an absurd diet, absolute nonsense and totally unsustainable for most people. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me or not. Also be very careful when talking about "curing" people of things.1. Taxes on soda, candy, and chips are one part of a multi-prong strategy to encourage healthy eating. They are an important, but not a magic bullet.
Why do we need to do this at all? Why not just subsidize healthy foods?
bigspender wrote on Oct 12, 2017, 00:03:
This doctor has personally cured some 6000 peoples obesity, plus hundreds of thousands more that have applied his methods.
He speaks a little about 'the system' which keeps people sick and obese in this presentation, it's fairly interesting.
I know anecdotes don't count for much, but he's right on the average life expactancy and still working (instead of dying) which he puts down to his lifestyle of stuffing your face with the right foods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWavdmw3rgw
1. Taxes on soda, candy, and chips are one part of a multi-prong strategy to encourage healthy eating. They are an important, but not a magic bullet.
jdreyer wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 17:35:
Second, few got fat eating whole foods. Our processed food transition over the past several decades has been a major culprit in our obesity. Sweetened beverages and other sweets are a huge part of that, but also chips, candy, cookies, instant ramen, chicken nuggets, sugary cereals, etc. etc. also contribute mightily and could hardly be considered "healthy."
NKD wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 16:20:Sugar isn't cocaine. People drink soda out of habit. Also, soda is especially insidious because it's mixed with water, and offers no satiety. You don't stop being hungry after drinking soda, like you might after having a piece of cake or a doughnut. That being said, yes, the best effect would be to raise the price of caloric sweeteners across the board.
And how does that compare to getting an equal amount of sugar from another source? A source outside whatever tax scheme you've dreamed up.
Will it? I'm a fatty myself, to varying degrees depending on my success with reducing calories, but I don't have a sweet tooth or consume that much sugar at all. How did I get fat? Well I switched from football to online video games after high school, and by eating too much of normal, healthy food.First, I bet you consume more sugar than you think. It's in everything. Check your ingredient labels. As Helf pointed out, sugar is an ingredient in his milk, for example.
There's no tax that's going to stop me from making two grilled cheese sandwiches instead of just making one and eating half at lunch and half later in the day. That's all up to me and whether I can muster up the willpower to change my habits.Put aside for the moment that if you're eating grilled cheese sandwiches, that you got fat eating "healthy" food. If I doubled the price of cheese, I bet you'd have an easier time making that decision.
If someones body is accustomed to eating a certain number of calories a day, they are going to keep eating that number of calories or higher in order to not feel hungry. If you raise the price of one food, they'll either just spend more on food, or switch to another to save money.Actually untrue. Different foods have different satiety levels. Two apples have the same calories as a can of Coke, but those two apples will leave you not hungry for hours vs. mere minutes for the Coke, causing you to seek additional calories.
"And if that wasn’t scary enough, the researchers found that drinking just one or two serving of pop a day can increase the risk of fatal heart disease or heart attack by a whopping 35 percent."
As the "War on drugs" has taught us, outright bans are prone to failure. And the poor are exactly the people who can least afford to come down with these kinds of illnesses. Raising the price on these kinds of foods and drinks will encourage them into healthier eating.
NKD wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 11:40:Consuming sugar water in moderation absolutely increases your risk:Cutter wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 10:21:
Considering the harm pop causes their should be a national tax on it the way Mexico does it. It works. Just like smokers who got outraged when they started taxing the shit out of smokes they'll either get smart and quit or pay the price. No one is saying you can't drink pop, but if you choose to you're just more of a burden on the system and ergo, should pay more tax to support said system.
This is some of the stupidest shit I'll read today I'm sure. Unlike cigarettes, consuming sugar water in moderation isn't going to increase health risks more than any other nutritionally bankrupt food. There is no safe amount of cigarettes you can smoke. Even periodic second-hand exposure drastically increases your odds of lung cancer, stroke, and heart attack.
Anyway, these sorts of taxes are stupid because they disproportionately impact the poor. In essence, its just a way to make money off poor people. If a product is truly too dangerous to let people purchase it, ban the sale of it.As the "War on drugs" has taught us, outright bans are prone to failure. And the poor are exactly the people who can least afford to come down with these kinds of illnesses. Raising the price on these kinds of foods and drinks will encourage them into healthier eating.
Plus, what about the million other ways people over-indulge? Do we tax the shit out of coffee to punish caffeine addicts? Caffeine pills? Food that is calorie dense? What about high calorie drinks that aren't soda?Caffeine has not been linked to the massive numbers of illnesses that sugar has. That being said, there has been talk of restricting, taxing, or even banning overly-caffeinated energy drinks. As for other types of foods, yeah, probably would be a good idea to double the price of candy and potato chips too.
"Soda taxes" in Mexico lowered consumption of soda, but did it lower calorie consumption? Did it reduce obesity? There is no data on that yet. In all likelyhood, people just spent their money on other junk food or drinks. You can't force people to eat healthy, or even make it difficult for them to eat unhealthy.
Verno wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 15:13:
Personally I track my macros because I lift and I'm going for volume so they are pretty important. Other people I know just count calories and they're perfectly happy. Whatever works for someone and gets them away from the bucket of KFC is cool beans with me.
Verno wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 12:06:
I used to support a tax on soda but I eventually realized that even if it was effective people would simply adjust habits to something else to get their fix. The real solution has to be in food education at home and in schools. Someone made a pretty compelling argument that minimizing corn subsidies would make a big difference too thanks to overuse of HFCS in...pretty much everything.
Mr. Tact wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 11:44:
Mexico, obviously, isn't the US. I'm guessing 90% of the meals offered in restaurants in Mexico don't provide 1,500+ calories. Also, I'm guessing the percentage of meals eaten at restaurants in the US is much higher. However, I'm open to the possibility of being incorrect.
Would soda taxes reduce obesity in the US? Possibly. Would it be a significant reduction? I'll believe that when I see it.
Tipsy McStagger wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 11:07:Creston wrote on Oct 11, 2017, 10:38:
Oh yeah, look who's #1 in the global obesity chart! WOO!
USA! USA! USA!
There's not much difference between canadians and the americans in terms of diet, we basically have the same things.
I just find it interesting how fat americans are.. but it's not surprising when I can get all you can eat buffet at KFC for like 10$. You can't find that in canada..