Soda Tax

[rawesome]

I just watched last week's episode of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" on fast food. Besides the episode being the most annoyingly biased one I've ever seen, it brought up the issue of a tax on soda and why it is the ultimate slap in the face to individual freedoms or some shit.

The question, would you support a tax increase on soda and other products highly saturated in corn syrup and sugar? Why or why not?

Against (http://www.slate.com/id/2255127)

For (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/business/economy/19leonhardt.html)

[Manicapathy]

The government knows that people won't stop doing things they enjoy, which is why they tax stuff like tobacco products and alcohol and why they're trying to tax sweets. It's like a "sin tax" if you will. If they were up front about it and said that their reasoning was to help make money to help get us out of the economic funk we are in, I wouldn't necessarily be in favor of it, but the honesty would be appreciated.

But, I hate it when they try and sell it as a means to dissuade people from doing stuff like that. Just tell me "Hey, you fat fuck, we know you're going to keep chugging that sweet, sweet corn syrup filled swill, so we're just going to make it a bit more expensive so that we can help out uncle Sam some more." Don't try and hide behind some 2 faced, non existent concern for my health, because I know you could care less as long as I keep buying your over taxed pop.

/rant end.

[jwicklun]

I really don't care. I'm not going to be outraged that my soda is being taxed, and fat fucks are going to complain but still buy it even if there's a slight increase. I like some episodes of Bullshit!, but at times they get the dumbest fucks to get the opposing arguments/ have Penn talking over the guy about how much of a dumb fuck he is.

[rawesome]

Well, actually the soaring obesity rates (http://www.annecollins.com/weight_health/obesity-rate.htm) in the US could be tempered by a reduction in the amount of soda people drink. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65H3J620100618) When we have a bunch of people intentionally indulging in unhealthy activity, it leads to people having more health issues, which in turn jacks up health costs for everyone else. (http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html)

So taxing it wouldn't be a way to get money to pay off debt, but just to curb already rising health care costs.

[Machu505]

If it works, we have healthier people and more money to spend on them. If it doesn't, we just have more money to offset to costs of obese people's health problems. Win/win situation.

[open mind]

let's just quit subsidizing corn as much.
it seems kind of backwards for the government to spend so much money to make it cheap and then turn around and tax it.

[Machu505]

let's just quit subsidizing corn as much.
it seems kind of backwards for the government to spend so much money to make it cheap and then turn around and tax it.

More subsidies for fruits and green vegetables is what we need. If salads weren't so much more expensive than burgers, maybe people would eat better.

[tkamB]

I don't drink soda, so I'm totally in support of this :-)

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I'm all for it. Americans are aware of what they ingest and its health consequences. Since soda is big business, at least get some government revenue out of it.

[the seventeenth]

I really don't care. I'm not going to be outraged that my soda is being taxed, and fat fucks are going to complain but still buy it even if there's a slight increase. I like some episodes of Bullshit!, but at times they get the dumbest fucks to get the opposing arguments/ have Penn talking over the guy about how much of a dumb fuck he is.
Great avatar. Did you enjoy the season premiere yesterday?

[bung]

More subsidies for fruits and green vegetables is what we need. If salads weren't so much more expensive than burgers, maybe people would eat better.

Water is practically free, so why do people drink soda at all?

[thatwasamoment]

Water is practically free, so why do people drink soda at all?Hamburger, Fries and a... Water? Nah dude, nah. No way man.

[bung]

Hamburger, Fries and a... Water? Nah dude, nah. No way man.

Exactly. It's not primarily due to economic reasons--it due to taste reasons.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Water is practically free, so why do people drink soda at all?

It's filled with sugar! Makes you run faster! Water just tastes bland. Duh!

[samsara]

I like everything not soda.

[bung]

I assume diet sodas wouldn't get a tax increase, correct?

I actually like diet Coke better than regular, which I'm drinking now. :-)

[Sloth7]

I sure hope it doesn't happen. If soda takes a hit, it's less chance we'll get a comeback of the 7-Up Spot.

http://thepilver.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/7-up-dot.jpg

[bung]

Personally, I think we should tax pants. Once you hit a certain size, boom! The taxes just rape your fat ass.

/no tax on clothes in MN

[GeeBee]

I'm all for it. Americans are aware of what they ingest and its health consequences. Since soda is big business, at least get some government revenue out of it.

Ditto.

[saysmydoctor]

Stupid tax, do not support. Find another way to balance your budget, New York, stop making me pay for your broken government when I go grocery shopping.

These taxes don't work. They don't reduce demand, they just make the consumer poorer.

[bung]

Stupid tax, do not support. Find another way to balance your budget, New York, stop making me pay for your broken government when I go grocery shopping.

These taxes don't work. They don't reduce demand, they just make the consumer poorer.

Haha wow, wasn't expecting this from you.

[Debut_Fin]

I don't think it is a terrible idea, but I totally see why people would be against it

[saysmydoctor]

Haha wow, wasn't expecting this from you.
I think it was Dom who said this is basically a conservative policy, trying to legislate behaviors. And that I don't particularly agree with.

[bung]

I think it was Dom who said this is basically a conservative policy, trying to legislate behaviors. And that I don't particularly agree with.

Ironically, when I've argued on here that policies like this attempt to regulate behavior through taxation, I've been labeled as conservative and, essentially, anti-progressive.

[saysmydoctor]

Ironically, when I've argued on here that policies like this attempt to regulate behavior through taxation, I've been labeled as conservative and, essentially, anti-progressive.
Why tax soda when they could close massive corporate loopholes?

A better idea would be to tax the advertising of these products. You want to market your product? 1. You're going to follow our regulations. 2. It's going to cost you a bit more.

[bung]

A better idea would be to tax the advertising of these products. You want to market your product? 1. You're going to follow our regulations. 2. It's going to cost you a bit more.

I would far prefer that, if a tax must be in place at all.

Although, I think I've actually come across some articles advocating a complete ban of television advertising for fast-food and soda. And, I imagine, if a soda tax were to go through that position would only become more realistic, which really pisses me off.

I mean, shit, I still think tobacco companies should be able to advertise on television.

[open mind]

More subsidies for fruits and green vegetables is what we need. If salads weren't so much more expensive than burgers, maybe people would eat better.

i'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that production of meat, inefficient fuel, and high fructose corn syrup uses up the vast majority of the corn produced as a result of subsidies.
http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2008/06/us-corn-consumption.html

the fact of the matter is that if it wasn't for corn subsidies beef, pork, chicken, and soda would cost much more then they currently do.
http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn

[And Hours Pass]

More subsidies for fruits and green vegetables is what we need. If salads weren't so much more expensive than burgers, maybe people would eat better.
Subsidizing the growth of the corn is one of the biggest problems with our country right now. Do you have any idea how much money the government wastes a year on subsidizing corn?

When someone says the government "subsidizes" fruit and vegetables, they don't mean for the consumer. The government subsidizes production.

[And Hours Pass]

i'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that production of meat, inefficient fuel, and high fructose corn syrup uses up the vast majority of the corn produced as a result of subsidies.
http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2008/06/us-corn-consumption.html

the fact of the matter is that if it wasn't for corn subsidies beef, pork, chicken, and soda would cost much more then they currently do.
http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn

Not necessarily. While it's cheaper to feed them corn, you neglect to mention the money the government wastes on hormones and antibiotics that they inject into the animals stomachs to enable them to digest corn - something that is not part of their diet and that they are unable to digest. Corn creates far more problems than it solves.

Subsidizing corn farming rather than letting the invisible hand of economics guide its growth is a problem that not a single person in charge of this country seems to have the desire or knowledge to fix.

[sdbrown]

Are they going to have a Pop Tax for those of us in the midwest? j/k

The government knows that people won't stop doing things they enjoy, which is why they tax stuff like tobacco products and alcohol and why they're trying to tax sweets. It's like a "sin tax" if you will. If they were up front about it and said that their reasoning was to help make money to help get us out of the economic funk we are in, I wouldn't necessarily be in favor of it, but the honesty would be appreciated.

But, I hate it when they try and sell it as a means to dissuade people from doing stuff like that. Just tell me "Hey, you fat fuck, we know you're going to keep chugging that sweet, sweet corn syrup filled swill, so we're just going to make it a bit more expensive so that we can help out uncle Sam some more." Don't try and hide behind some 2 faced, non existent concern for my health, because I know you could care less as long as I keep buying your over taxed pop.

/rant end.
But in some ways it IS a way to get people to stop doing stuff like that. Heavier people cost the government a ton of money- they need more for medicare, medicade, they use more gasoline in their cars and create more pollution, etc. So it's not that they want to raise money, they want people to stop drinking it, too. Not that it IS going to stop people from drinking, but maybe it will make a few people think twice before they do.

I assume diet sodas wouldn't get a tax increase, correct?

I actually like diet Coke better than regular, which I'm drinking now. :-)
Diet pop is also detrimental to your health so if they are doing it for health reasons I'd guess they'd include that.

Personally, I think we should tax pants. Once you hit a certain size, boom! The taxes just rape your fat ass.

/no tax on clothes in MN
Hahahahahaha. But then you'd have hefty people trying to squeeze into one size lower pants! I don't wank on fat people but no one wants to see that.

[thepianominstre]

The reason I don't support the government taxing or restricting behaviors I don't like is because that same government can also tax or restrict behavior I do like. It's ok when I agree with them on what's wrong or harmful or whatever, but what if I don't, or what if they change their minds?

(See: Prohibition)

[katyara]

Does anyone know if these taxes actually have any effect on how many people buy soda, or obesity rates, or anything at all?

[exploration #4]

the soda tax is like the edge-version of prohibition

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Does anyone know if these taxes actually have any effect on how many people buy soda, or obesity rates, or anything at all?

increasing cigarette taxes seem to reduce smoking, specifically amongst young adults.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/prices/

[caveBEAR]

The reason I don't support the government taxing or restricting behaviors I don't like is because that same government can also tax or restrict behavior I do like. It's ok when I agree with them on what's wrong or harmful or whatever, but what if I don't, or what if they change their minds?

(See: Prohibition)

Soda tax =/= prohibition. I definitely see where you're coming from and agree with the sentiment, but they are not the same thing, and the ramifications will be wildly different. There will be no crime family illegally running Pepsi into high schools. The soda tax would be likened much more to the cigarette tax we have now.

[katyara]

increasing cigarette taxes seem to reduce smoking, specifically amongst young adults.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/prices/

Thanks for that. I think these kinds of taxes are only useful if they actually make a difference.

[saysmydoctor]

Is legalizing pot and taxing it prohibition? No.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

The reason I don't support the government taxing or restricting behaviors I don't like is because that same government can also tax or restrict behavior I do like. It's ok when I agree with them on what's wrong or harmful or whatever, but what if I don't, or what if they change their minds?

(See: Prohibition)

I understand where you are coming from, but I tend to think of marijuana when it comes to government restrictions. I don't smoke pot but I have no problem if it's legalized, regulated, and taxed (since it seems that it is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco). It seems to be a possibility in California. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62O08U20100325) But by your logic, whether you approve of certain substances, the government restricts the recreational use and sale of certain narcotics, especially those which "come from the earth". Is it wrong that marijuana and shrooms are restricted by the government? You mention Prohibition, but history shows then whether or not if a product is legal, there is a market out there for it and sellers will find a way to sell it. It's better to legalize and regulate it in order to reduce crime.

[saysmydoctor]

increasing cigarette taxes seem to reduce smoking, specifically amongst young adults.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/prices/
False: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/26117.html

[splitsecond]

Stupid tax, do not support. Find another way to balance your budget, New York, stop making me pay for your broken government when I go grocery shopping.

These taxes don't work. They don't reduce demand, they just make the consumer poorer.

:overhead:

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

False: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/26117.html

I guess I'm just a wishful thinker :unsure:

[saysmydoctor]

:overhead:
Forgot to add: SOCIALISM.

[Disconsolate]

I just watched last week's episode of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" on fast food. Besides the episode being the most annoyingly biased one I've ever seen, it brought up the issue of a tax on soda and why it is the ultimate slap in the face to individual freedoms or some shit.

The question, would you support a tax increase on soda and other products highly saturated in corn syrup and sugar? Why or why not?

Against (http://www.slate.com/id/2255127)

For (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/business/economy/19leonhardt.html)
I don't approve of theft, so I guess I'm against.

[Tec Mason]

The Soda tax represents everything which i dislike about the State. Because the government has a monopoly on force and arbitration, it encourages people to lobby it in order to force an entire territory to accept a subjective value judgement. Basically, people feel so strongly about the effects of soda that they are willing to force others to accept a similar world-view. There is nothing wrong with peacefully attempting to persuade others that soda drinking is wrong or unhealthy. What I find wrong is punishing others for their personal decision to drink soda.

[BoysNightOutie]

Fuck soaring obesity rates, that's an issue of self control and not everyone should be taxed up the ass for it.

[majinsharingan]

Fine by me. Tax away. I need to stop drinking so damn much soda anyway. Gotta love the people who get angry at the government when they actually do something that's helpful. And yeah, it's probably just to get more money but who cares if it's still beneficiary to us, eh?

[Tec Mason]

Fine by me. Tax away.

This is the problem. A tax is not voluntary. You say it is fine by you, and that is well and good, but do you believe it is ethical to force people who it isnt "fine by" to pay for the health choice that you prefer? To say "living healthier due to the tax is better than drinking more sodas" is a subjective and personal judgment call. It is impossible to objectively say what a better life is. After all, one could be happier eating chocolate, but healthier eating carrots. It is a personal preference, and when the state forces a personal preference such as this onto others that share a different opinion, it bodes well for no one.

If there was voluntary tax on soda, meaning you pay extra only if it was "fine by you", then there wouldn't be a problem. This will never happen of course, because no one in there right mind would pay it. This is the point: soda tax lobbyists are unhappy with the way people choose to live their life, and they take it out on them by punishing the wicked soda guzzlers. If they simply used persuasion and a "don't drink sodas campaign" i wouldn't have a problem. The fact that it must become a law is proof enough to me that the state wants to raise revenue involuntarily, so it is picking a product with a relatively inelastic demand curve so that revenues raise quickly.

[majinsharingan]

This is the problem. A tax is not voluntary. You say it is fine by you, and that is well and good, but do you believe it is ethical to force people who it isnt "fine by" to pay for the health choice that you prefer? To say "living healthier due to the tax is better than drinking more sodas" is a subjective and personal judgment call. It is impossible to objectively say what a better life is. After all, one could be happier eating chocolate, but healthier eating carrots. It is a personal preference, and when the state forces a personal preference such as this onto others that share a different opinion, it bodes well for no one.

If there was voluntary tax on soda, meaning you pay extra only if it was "fine by you", then there wouldn't be a problem. This will never happen of course, because no one in there right mind would pay it. This is the point: soda tax lobbyists are unhappy with the way people choose to live their life, and they take it out on them by punishing the wicked soda guzzlers. If they simply used persuasion and a "don't drink sodas campaign" i wouldn't have a problem. The fact that it must become a law is proof enough to me that the state wants to raise revenue involuntarily, so it is picking a product with a relatively inelastic demand curve so that revenues raise quickly.

Don't drink sodas campaign? What're you 9? No you're not, you're 23 so tell me why you're suggesting an idea you know will fail? Or is it just blind faith? Either way Don't Drink Sodas campaign will work even less than DARE. Fact is you just don't like the government. I don't much either. I don't like paying more money. Why would I like that? But fact is with that tax I can afford less shit that let's face it, will probably kill me along with thousands, maybe even millions others. This isn't about them though, it's about you and you not liking the government.

Taxation is how people who work for the state get money, you know that right? So maybe this is fine where you live but here this place has kind of gone to shit. So this tax is a good thing. 1. Even if it's just a little bit, it will slow down the deterioration of the health here. 2. There's a slight chance some of this money may go to the police force or the doctors or the teachers. Or the schools. My god do they need to go to the schools.

Point is, you don't like the government. I get that. But like it or not this is happening so make the best out of this negative cause believe me, there are positives in this.

[Tec Mason]

Don't drink sodas campaign? What're you 9? No you're not, you're 23 so tell me why you're suggesting an idea you know will fail?

Point is, you don't like the government. I get that. But like it or not this is happening so make the best out of this negative cause believe me, there are positives in this.

We both know it would fail, and so do the soda tax lobbyists. That is proof alone that people would rather drink sodas and be less healthy than be healthier without them. My point is that the anti-soda people or pro-health people know that they cannot get what they want through non-coercive means, so they will go the coercive route.

You are correct. I do not like the government.

The positives you claim will come out of this (funding for doctors or teachers, etc) is not a net gain. If 30 cents goes from my pocket to the tax to a teacher, that is no gain in wealth for society. it just means I am 30 cents poorer and the teacher is 30 cents richer. Now you could make the argument that the teacher deserves it more than me, but that is a subjective judgement based on your opinion of each of our worth. I dislike laws forced onto people based off of subjective preferences (but that is another topic).

EDIT: I forgot to answer one of your questions

Taxation is how people who work for the state get money, you know that right?


Yes I know that and I believe that it is immoral. If you want to know why I think this that would be for a separate thread. I am sure I have argued it elsewhere.

[majinsharingan]

We both know it would fail, and so do the soda tax lobbyists. That is proof alone that people would rather drink sodas and be less healthy than be healthier without them. My point is that the anti-soda people or pro-health people know that they cannot get what they want through non-coercive means, so they will go the coercive route.

You are correct. I do not like the government.

The positives you claim will come out of this (funding for doctors or teachers, etc) is not a net gain. If 30 cents goes from my pocket to the tax to a teacher, that is no gain in wealth for society. it just means I am 30 cents poorer and the teacher is 30 cents richer. Now you could make the argument that the teacher deserves it more than me, but that is a subjective judgement based on your opinion of each of our worth. I dislike laws forced onto people based off of subjective preferences (but that is another topic).

It's not a matter of not getting what they want. It's better for the people. Just like taxing cigarettes.

And we're obviously from two different areas but I promise the teachers here need more money than they are getting paid. Especially the good ones.

That and the schools. The schools definitely need more money but when the states needs money who gets cut? The schools.

[Tec Mason]

Yes this is exactly like taxing cigarettes as you state (which I also oppose). You say "its better for the people" but as i said earlier, you cannot objectively say that a life free of soda (or smoking) is a better life. It is possible to live a happy life and die at 55 to lung cancer or heart failure. It is also possible to live a miserable life to 110 while eating healthy. To take these choices of life away from people is what I find to be intolerable.

I am from Georgia.

You say teachers need more money yet this tax will apply to soda drinking teachers as well.

Edit: No I do not smoke. I will drink soda, though I drink sweet tea way more =D

[majinsharingan]

Yes this is exactly like taxing cigarettes as you state (which I also oppose). You say "its better for the people" but as i said earlier, you cannot objectively say that a life free of soda (or smoking) is a better life. It is possible to live a happy life and die at 55 to lung cancer or heart failure. It is also possible to live a miserable life to 110 while eating healthy. To take these choices of life away from people is what I find to be intolerable.

I am from Georgia.

You say teachers need more money yet this tax will apply to soda drinking teachers as well.

Edit: No I do not smoke. I will drink soda, though I drink sweet tea way more =D

They don't need to die at 55 though. I can in fact say that a life free of smoking and soda is a healthier life than one filled with smoking and soda. It's about health, not happiness. And it's not taking these choices away from people. It's giving them tiny vices to go along with the bigger vices they choose to keep purchasing and using.

Can you tell me why there are Wrong Way and Do Not Enter signs stretched across your entire state? Are you all a bunch of idiots? No offense to you of course. Just found it odd how they needed to put a Do Not Enter sign on the side of a bridge...and at the side of the forest...and on the median...

I'm actually saying schools need more money. You're just focusing on teachers. Schools cannot drink sodas.

Ah yes, sweet tea :D

[Disconsolate]

They don't need to die at 55 though. I can in fact say that a life free of smoking and soda is a healthier life than one filled with smoking and soda. It's about health, not happiness. And it's not taking these choices away from people. It's giving them tiny vices to go along with the bigger vices they choose to keep purchasing and using.

Can you tell me why there are Wrong Way and Do Not Enter signs stretched across your entire state? Are you all a bunch of idiots? No offense to you of course. Just found it odd how they needed to put a Do Not Enter sign on the side of a bridge...and at the side of the forest...and on the median...

I'm actually saying schools need more money. You're just focusing on teachers. Schools cannot drink sodas.

Ah yes, sweet tea :D
You're missing the boat between subjective and objective.

You claim it's about health and not happiness, so it's okay to steal from others and use that money to force people into lifestyles they obviously do not want? The hubris of that argument is profound.

Regardless, you can never -objectively- prove that if someone smokes like a train and chugs soda all day dying at 30, that they are worse off than the gym and health nut who lives to be 120. You are more than welcome to make your case for why people should or shouldn't do certain activities. It's a completely different scenario when that turns from persuasion to coercion using the state.

[saysmydoctor]

You're missing the boat between subjective and objective.

You claim it's about health and not happiness, so it's okay to steal from others and use that money to force people into lifestyles they obviously do not want? The hubris of that argument is profound.

Regardless, you can never -objectively- prove that if someone smokes like a train and chugs soda all day dying at 30, that they are worse off than the gym and health nut who lives to be 120. You are more than welcome to make your case for why people should or shouldn't do certain activities. It's a completely different scenario when that turns from persuasion to coercion using the state.
You could make a pretty educated guess though.

[open mind]

Not necessarily. While it's cheaper to feed them corn, you neglect to mention the money the government wastes on hormones and antibiotics that they inject into the animals stomachs to enable them to digest corn - something that is not part of their diet and that they are unable to digest. Corn creates far more problems than it solves.

Subsidizing corn farming rather than letting the invisible hand of economics guide its growth is a problem that not a single person in charge of this country seems to have the desire or knowledge to fix.

it's poor feed, but it's still subsidized so much that it's much cheaper to use and the savings result in cheaper meat and sugar.
i'm not sure if the government pays for the antibiotics and hormones.

[KingsCrossing]

But in some ways it IS a way to get people to stop doing stuff like that. Heavier people cost the government a ton of money- they need more for medicare, medicade, they use more gasoline in their cars and create more pollution, etc..

Do you have a source or link for this? Not saying you're wrong, I just thought this was interesting and was wondering if there were any studies supporting this (especially the increased use of gasoline and pollution).

[bung]

They don't need to die at 55 though. I can in fact say that a life free of smoking and soda is a healthier life than one filled with smoking and soda.

No, you can't say that at all, actually. Your stance only takes physical health into account.

It's about health, not happiness.

A happy society is infinitely paramount to a healthy society. Happiness is quite possibly one of the only ends in itself. People that strive to be healthy do so not because health is an end in itself, but because it facilitates their own happiness.

You could make a pretty educated guess though.

Not really. Any educated guess is bound to be erroneously based on your own subjective conception of the good life and, furthermore, commit the fallacy of equivocation. Quality of life and quantity of life are two entirely separate things, and virtually everyone weighs them differently.

[sdbrown]

Do you have a source or link for this? Not saying you're wrong, I just thought this was interesting and was wondering if there were any studies supporting this (especially the increased use of gasoline and pollution).
I don't have studies because it was from a lecture but it's common sense- just as an SUV will use more gasoline because it is a bigger, heavier car, a heavy person will require a greater amount of fuel because you need more force to propel a heavier object. Not to mention heavier people will usually require more food than the average normal weight person (this excludes athletes of normal size, of course) which stems way back to the beginning of the production cycle- more grains, more veggies- whatever they consume, they will require more of it, thus requiring more gasoline in tractors, trucks to transport food, etc.

Actually, scratch that first thought, I found the article the lecture was based on:
http://news.illinois.edu/news/06/1024auto.html

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I know the topic is about taxation but I wanted to bring this to the mix... After reading "Fast Food Nation" and seeing docs like "Food Inc.", when it comes to the food industry, I tend to think that corporations and marketers are able to create foods that fuel addiction (such as using sugar (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/index.html?hpt=C2) and salt (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/15/america.salt.addiction/index.html), which seem to be an addictive ingredient like nicotine). But I still want to know who these decision makers are and whether or not they actually indulge in their junk food product. How often does the CEO of McDonalds eat a Big Mac? How many bottles of Pepsi do the board members of PepsiCo drink? How many bags of chips does the CEO of Lays consume?

[bung]

I know the topic is about taxation but I wanted to bring this to the mix... After reading "Fast Food Nation" and seeing docs like "Food Inc.", when it comes to the food industry, I tend to think that corporations and marketers are able to create foods that fuel addiction (such as using sugar (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/index.html?hpt=C2) and salt (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/15/america.salt.addiction/index.html), which seem to be an addictive ingredient like nicotine). But I still want to know who these decision makers are and whether or not they actually indulge in their junk food product. How often does the CEO of McDonalds eat a Big Mac? How many bottles of Pepsi do the board members of PepsiCo drink? How many bags of chips does the CEO of Lays consume?

Sugar and salt are absolutely, positively, without a doubt, not even close to nicotine. Not even in the same ballpark. Not even the same fucking sport.

Equating the two, and believing it, means that the health nuts have succeeded in their blatant fear-mongering.

Go ahead. Smoke for a year. Then drink soda every day for a year. See which is harder to give up. Just try it. I dare you.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Sugar and salt are absolutely, positively, without a doubt, not even close to nicotine. Not even in the same ballpark. Not even the same fucking sport.

Equating the two, and believing it, means that the health nuts have succeeded in their blatant fear-mongering.

Go ahead. Smoke for a year. Then drink soda every day for a year. See which is harder to give up. Just try it. I dare you.

geez, sorry for even mentioning the n-word. I take it back.

[bung]

geez, sorry for even mentioning the n-word. I take it back.

Sorry for coming off like an angry douche.

It's just that these so-called "food addictions" are blown WAY out of proportion. They're an attempt to reduce demand through fear-mongering. It's the exact same stunt the government and its "scientists" have been pulling for years in the drug war--taking drugs like marijuana, ecstasy, and psychedelics, then completely exaggerating their potential dangers.

[And Hours Pass]

it's poor feed, but it's still subsidized so much that it's much cheaper to use and the savings result in cheaper meat and sugar.
i'm not sure if the government pays for the antibiotics and hormones.
I'm open to the idea that it may be cheaper, but the idea of subsidizing corn and then creating preventative checks for its production is absolutely absurd. Not to mention that the preventative check in question is force-feeding corn to animals that have no ability to digest it and in turn injecting these animals with hormones and antibiotics to force-fit the solution.

This now leaves us with absurd corn surpluses, unnatural meat supplies, and CAFOs filled with drugged cows. How fantastic.

[splitsecond]

Forgot to add: SOCIALISM.

you are not dom, i am not amused.

[thepianominstre]

Soda tax =/= prohibition. I definitely see where you're coming from and agree with the sentiment, but they are not the same thing, and the ramifications will be wildly different. There will be no crime family illegally running Pepsi into high schools. The soda tax would be likened much more to the cigarette tax we have now.

I understand where you are coming from, but I tend to think of marijuana when it comes to government restrictions. I don't smoke pot but I have no problem if it's legalized, regulated, and taxed (since it seems that it is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco). It seems to be a possibility in California. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62O08U20100325) But by your logic, whether you approve of certain substances, the government restricts the recreational use and sale of certain narcotics, especially those which "come from the earth". Is it wrong that marijuana and shrooms are restricted by the government? You mention Prohibition, but history shows then whether or not if a product is legal, there is a market out there for it and sellers will find a way to sell it. It's better to legalize and regulate it in order to reduce crime.

I don't think I have a problem with legalizing marijuana either, for similar reasons. And I can even get on board with kinds of regulations to prevent crime or reduce the negative effects on outsiders (i.e. driving under influence or something like that). Where I get suspicious is when government wants to restrict something for my own good, be it marijuana or soda or whatever - and that's the part I meant from the Prohibition analogy, which (not to oversimplify things) had something to do with illegalizing alcohol because that would be good for alcoholics.

I don't trust that the government's definition of my own good, and mine, are the same, and I would prefer to retain my freedom to deviate from someone else's definition of good behavior.

(advance apologies on replies, I'm about to be away from the Internet for a week)

[saysmydoctor]

you are not dom, i am not amused.
This is just a swing and a miss there, duder.

[Disconsolate]

You could make a pretty educated guess though.
If you're okay with stealing people's money by force on a guess, then I understand where you're coming from. If you're not okay with theft, then your statement perplexes me.

[caveBEAR]

If you're okay with stealing people's money by force on a guess, then I understand where you're coming from. If you're not okay with theft, then your statement perplexes me.

I think of it less as 'stealing' and more as 'adding tax revenue into the (soon to be) public health care system that will be flooded with people who have diabetes by the time they're 30'.

But, hey, 'po-tay-to'/'po-tah-to', right?

[Disconsolate]

I think of it less as 'stealing' and more as 'adding tax revenue into the (soon to be) public health care system that will be flooded with people who have diabetes by the time they're 30'.

But, hey, 'po-tay-to'/'po-tah-to', right?
Which shows exactly how idiotic a public health care system is and the state overall.

[caveBEAR]

Which shows exactly how idiotic a public health care system is and the state overall.

:ok:

[Disconsolate]

:ok:
<3

[Discovery1]

Same.

[saysmydoctor]

Which shows exactly how idiotic a public health care system is and the state overall.
That's not what it shows at all. If anything, it proves that conservatives aren't really about individual responsibility at all.

[Tec Mason]

That's not what it shows at all. If anything, it proves that conservatives aren't really about individual responsibility at all.

Agreed! Conservatives would rather force you and I into doing the "right thing" than for us to practice self restraint. Same with the Left. both political parties in the U.S. have historically been pro-war, pro-welfare,and against personal responsability.

[majinsharingan]

No, you can't say that at all, actually. Your stance only takes physical health into account.


You're right it does. But I can still say that. Depression kills, yeah. What kills more though? Disease or Suicide?


A happy society is infinitely paramount to a healthy society. Happiness is quite possibly one of the only ends in itself. People that strive to be healthy do so not because health is an end in itself, but because it facilitates their own happiness.


This is neither a happy nor healthy society but we are far closer to happy than we are healthy.

[bung]

You're right it does. But I can still say that. Depression kills, yeah. What kills more though? Disease or Suicide?

You missed the point. The phrase "mental health" isn't constrained to abnormal psychology. A long life doesn't necessarily mean a good life, the same way a short life doesn't necessarily mean a bad life.

This is neither a happy nor healthy society but we are far closer to happy than we are healthy.

That doesn't mean we should treat health as an end in and of itself, for the simple fact that people don't treat health in that matter.

[majinsharingan]

You missed the point. The phrase "mental health" isn't constrained to abnormal psychology. A long life doesn't necessarily mean a good life, the same way a short life doesn't necessarily mean a bad life.

Yeah, it doesn't. But there are too many situations in all of this hypothetical talk. Generally, people who are healthier will live longer lives unless something else intervenes.

[saysmydoctor]

Agreed! Conservatives would rather force you and I into doing the "right thing" than for us to practice self restraint. Same with the Left. both political parties in the U.S. have historically been pro-war, pro-welfare,and against personal responsability.
I didn't say anything about political parties, not sure why you are.

[Disconsolate]

That's not what it shows at all. If anything, it proves that conservatives aren't really about individual responsibility at all.
I agree. Neither party is really interested in being more responsible and self aware. Instead they're rather use force and coercion, via the state, to change how you act. This soda tax is a perfect example.

[bung]

Generally, people who are healthier will live longer lives unless something else intervenes.

I don't dispute that. Indeed, I agree wholeheartedly with it.

However, I don't believe quantity of life should be a society's goal. What would you rather do--live a happy, fulfilling, satisfying life and die at 60, or live an unsatisfying, dull, and borderline miserable existence until 100? Sorry for another hypothetical, and I know they aren't mutually exclusive, but it's necessary for my position.

Look at the society Japan has created (and nothing against Japan here, because I think it's an awesome country and would love to visit it someday, but it serves as a great example). Highest life expectancy, but also, by far, the highest suicide rate in the world.

[saysmydoctor]

I agree. Neither party is really interested in being more responsible and self aware. Instead they're rather use force and coercion, via the state, to change how you act. This soda tax is a perfect example.
Again, said nothing about political parties.

[Disconsolate]

Again, said nothing about political parties.
Neither did I in my original quote. Which makes me wonder why you brought it up!

Nevertheless, I couldn't agree more :).

[open mind]

I'm open to the idea that it may be cheaper, but the idea of subsidizing corn and then creating preventative checks for its production is absolutely absurd. Not to mention that the preventative check in question is force-feeding corn to animals that have no ability to digest it and in turn injecting these animals with hormones and antibiotics to force-fit the solution.

This now leaves us with absurd corn surpluses, unnatural meat supplies, and CAFOs filled with drugged cows. How fantastic.

i'm not as awake as i ought to be so i'm not sure what you're going on about.
i'm just saying let's cut back on subsidies so prices reflect the real cost of that value meal.

[saysmydoctor]

Neither did I in my original quote. Which makes me wonder why you brought it up!

Nevertheless, I couldn't agree more :).
I didn't bring it up. Ideologies =/= parties

[And Hours Pass]

i'm not as awake as i ought to be so i'm not sure what you're going on about.
i'm just saying let's cut back on subsidies so prices reflect the real cost of that value meal.
I'm also arguing against subsidizing corn farming because of the consequences of this production: absurd corn surpluses, unnatural meat supplies, CAFOs filled with drugged cows, and government dollars spent on a wasteful cause.

[Manicapathy]

I'm also arguing against subsidizing corn farming because of the consequences of this production: absurd corn surpluses, unnatural meat supplies, CAFOs filled with drugged cows, and government dollars spent on a wasteful cause.


Corn is the enemy.

qFHVGiqWOZI

[Tec Mason]

Here is a great article if you wish to understand my side of the argument (anti-tax). It is short I promise :-)

http://mises.org/daily/3611

[jtasch]

that ish it too crazy

[jtasch]

lol

[GeeBee]

Here is a great article if you wish to understand my side of the argument (anti-tax). It is short I promise :-)

http://mises.org/daily/3611

So cheetos and oreos contain meat? Not following...

[Tec Mason]

So cheetos and oreos contain meat? Not following...

Of course they don't. The article is about how people do not bare the full costs of their unhealthy lifestyle as long as we have public health care. Obviously a public system is supported by the community as a whole via taxation, so the risks of being unhealthy are being subsidized by the government. The article concludes that If people had to bare the full cost of their lifestyle choices, then they would have a greater incentive to eat healthier. the pro-tax guys are right in complaining that fatties put a cost on society by increasing the costs the government ahs to keep them alive. But if the unhealthy people bore their own costs, it would give them the incentive to be less unhealthy.

A quote: " But how can a good that is potentially hazardous get cheaper and cheaper? Shouldn't the market accommodate for the hazard, so that people who are willing to take the potential risk for the sake of pleasure have to face higher costs in terms of higher insurance premiums? That's where the public medical plans come into play. Since the government distorts the health insurance markets, it releases the insurance seekers from their own responsibilities."

[Tec Mason]

Yeah, it doesn't. But there are too many situations in all of this hypothetical talk. Generally, people who are healthier will live longer lives unless something else intervenes.

That is actually a very important point in favor of not controlling peoples health. If I gain happiness from soda, and am less happy without soda, then I will choose to drink soda. If a health tax forces me to buy less soda than is optimal for my utility (happiness) then I will be less happy then i could have been without the tax. If I get hit by a bus or die some other way, then I would have been better off being unhealthy-yet-happy then I would have been following our Glorious Overlord's health reforms.

EDIT: In other words, what is the point in being healthy yet less happy if it possible you could die from a non health related incident?

[Disconsolate]

As Mason said, it is important that people are accountable to their own decisions. This is exactly why things such as deposit insurance lead agents to pick riskier decisions.

[Two Headed Girl]

I went in a gas station yesterday and there was a sign that said "Because of new state regulations we will no longer be rewarding Xtra Mart card reward points on cigarettes." Weird.

[GeeBee]

Of course they don't. The article is about how people do not bare the full costs of their unhealthy lifestyle as long as we have public health care. Obviously a public system is supported by the community as a whole via taxation, so the risks of being unhealthy are being subsidized by the government. The article concludes that If people had to bare the full cost of their lifestyle choices, then they would have a greater incentive to eat healthier. the pro-tax guys are right in complaining that fatties put a cost on society by increasing the costs the government ahs to keep them alive. But if the unhealthy people bore their own costs, it would give them the incentive to be less unhealthy.

A quote: " But how can a good that is potentially hazardous get cheaper and cheaper? Shouldn't the market accommodate for the hazard, so that people who are willing to take the potential risk for the sake of pleasure have to face higher costs in terms of higher insurance premiums? That's where the public medical plans come into play. Since the government distorts the health insurance markets, it releases the insurance seekers from their own responsibilities."

Gotcha. I'll agree with you in the case of lifestyle choices.

Unfortunately, healthcare is still necessary for maladies that had nothing to do with such choices.

[Tec Mason]

I went in a gas station yesterday and there was a sign that said "Because of new state regulations we will no longer be rewarding Xtra Mart card reward points on cigarettes." Weird.

All hail our wise, benevolent Overlords...thank you for stopping what I am too dumb to stop.

[rawesome]

As Mason said, it is important that people are accountable to their own decisions. This is exactly why things such as deposit insurance lead agents to pick riskier decisions.
Wouldn't someone having to pay a higher price to drink an unhealthy soda be one way to make them accountable for their choice?

[Disconsolate]

Wouldn't someone having to pay a higher price to drink an unhealthy soda be one way to make them accountable for their choice?
If you want the "two wrongs make a right" method, then yes stealing from someone every time they make a decision you disagree with will lead to them making less of that decision.

Without government intervention in health care those who live a less than healthy lifestyle will be facing the full cost of their own actions.

[rawesome]

If you want the "two wrongs make a right" method, then yes stealing from someone every time they make a decision you disagree with will lead to them making less of that decision.
It's not stealing if the other party is entirely aware of the choice they are making. If it's a decision that effects the community as a whole, than it should be one that is decided in a civil manner. If the government uses incentives to make a decision easier for people in a way that serves everyone better, that hardly amounts to any sort of underhanded theft. However, the fact that I can walk two blocks from my house right now and buy a pop for 35 cents means that the decision to drink the unhealthy product is, for some, basically made for them. (I'm aware that 35 cent soda machines are a rarity, but I promise this one exists.) It's not about regulating behavior, but simply creating incentives for people to make better choices that will, in turn, benefit both themselves and everyone else.

The best example of using taxes as incentives to make decisions that benefit the community-at-large is European gasoline taxes.

Also, it probably wouldn't be considered stealing if the money that is "taken" is used as funding that would just continue to benefit the community and the individuals within that community. You know, like taxes.

Side note: I don't believe I've seen you post a single thing on this board that didn't include either the words "steal" or "theft." Maybe you should tone down the angry rhetoric.

[rawesome]

Without government intervention in health care those who live a less than healthy lifestyle will be facing the full cost of their own actions.
You're right.

Unfortunately government intervention in health insurance (which is, I assume, what you meant, because I can't fathom a world in which hospitals operate without following any sort of regulatory code) there would also be a sizable number of people who would be unable to even see a doctor because they wouldn't be able to afford it, not to mention the fact that we would all be essentially raped of our incomes or forced to pay out of pocket for medical procedures, neither of which is a particularly appetizing possibility to most people. Deregulated insurance industries are far more akin to "theft" than taxation.

[Disconsolate]

It's not stealing if the other party is entirely aware of the choice they are making. If it's a decision that effects the community as a whole, than it should be one that is decided in a civil manner. If the government uses incentives to make a decision easier for people in a way that serves everyone better, that hardly amounts to any sort of underhanded theft. However, the fact that I can walk two blocks from my house right now and buy a pop for 35 cents means that the decision to drink the unhealthy product is, for some, basically made for them. (I'm aware that 35 cent soda machines are a rarity, but I promise this one exists.) It's not about regulating behavior, but simply creating incentives for people to make better choices that will, in turn, benefit both themselves and everyone else.

The best example of using taxes as incentives to make decisions that benefit the community-at-large is European gasoline taxes.

Also, it probably wouldn't be considered stealing if the money that is "taken" is used as funding that would just continue to benefit the community and the individuals within that community. You know, like taxes.

Side note: I don't believe I've seen you post a single thing on this board that didn't include either the words "steal" or "theft." Maybe you should tone down the angry rhetoric.
You're taking a lot of liberty in saying you know what's best for others. That's my point here. We -don't- know what is best for others, that is why I don't recommend we help people make "better choices". Do you see the hubris in that?

I'm sorry if theft makes you uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable too. That is why I oppose aggression :).

[Disconsolate]

You're right.

Unfortunately government intervention in health insurance (which is, I assume, what you meant, because I can't fathom a world in which hospitals operate without following any sort of regulatory code) there would also be a sizable number of people who would be unable to even see a doctor because they wouldn't be able to afford it, not to mention the fact that we would all be essentially raped of our incomes or forced to pay out of pocket for medical procedures, neither of which is a particularly appetizing possibility to most people. Deregulated insurance industries are far more akin to "theft" than taxation.
I agree, people not having access to a good or service is a shame. That's why I oppose government involvement in the medical industry.

[rawesome]

You're taking a lot of liberty in saying you know what's best for others. That's my point here. We -don't- know what is best for others, that is why I don't recommend we help people make "better choices". Do you see the hubris in that?

I'm sorry if theft makes you uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable too. That is why I oppose aggression :).
http://hubpages.com/hub/Soda-Pop-is-Unhealthy
http://blisstree.com/feel/what-happens-to-your-body-if-you-drink-a-coke-right-now/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/60439/so_how_unhealthy_is_soda_really.htm l
http://www.ivillage.com/truth-about-soda-it-bad-you/4-a-108216
http://waterforlifeusa.com/blog/uncategorized/8-ways-soda-fizzles-your-health/
http://www.physorg.com/news195216771.html

It doesn't make me upset, it's just that you keep using it in the wrong context, especially as it relates to this thread.
http://strategicdc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/inconceivable.jpg

[rawesome]

I agree, people not having access to a good or service is a shame. That's why I oppose government involvement in the medical industry.
What?

[Disconsolate]

soda is unhealthy links (http://hubpages.com/hub/Soda-Pop-is-Unhealthy)
Yes, I understand that soda has negative consequences. So does mountain biking, camp fire building, and driving cars. Through human action people adjust for risk based on their own (not yours, or some benevolent overlord) personal preferences. These are preferences that you can never POSSIBLY know. Suppose I LOVE soda and I love fighting dinosaurs. Who are you to tell me my life needs some new incentives so I act more in accord with what you want my life to be?

The best argument against that is "well health care is public and now your actions are borne by others".

So get government out of healthcare. Allow the market to regulate it.

Here, some links too:
http://mises.org/daily/3737
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/08/is-there-a-doc-in-the-house-a-response-to-krugman-on-obamacare.html

Edit: It's important here to distinguish that I'm not against trying to help people live healthier lives. Take the movie Super Size Me, great example of how you can change people's actions without coercion. A lot of people watched it and decided to severely cut back or completely eliminate their fast food intake. I will never disagree that sodas have harmful impacts on one's health, I will however disagree that we should force them to live their life how we want to. That will never stop me from trying to convince them though.

[rawesome]

Yes, I understand that soda has negative consequences. So does mountain biking, camp fire building, and driving cars. Through human action people adjust for risk based on their own (not yours, or some benevolent overlord) personal preferences. These are preferences that you can never POSSIBLY know. Suppose I LOVE soda and I love fighting dinosaurs. Who are you to tell me my life needs some new incentives so I act more in accord with what you want my life to be?

The best argument against that is "well health care is public and now your actions are borne by others".

So get government out of healthcare. Allow the market to regulate it.

Here, some links too:
http://mises.org/daily/3737
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/08/is-there-a-doc-in-the-house-a-response-to-krugman-on-obamacare.html
I don't think you understand my position clearly. I don't care, at all, if people drink soda or alcohol or smoke cigarettes, though I choose personally to do none of those things. I do, however, choose to drink (a lot) of coffee even though I'm aware of the negative health consequences. So I can sympathize with people who like to indulge in things that are knowingly unhealthy. I'm also fairly certain that I'd still drink coffee, though maybe less of it (which would be a good thing) if it were taxed more heavily. I'm not advocating changing someone's behavior to suite my own, but rather to think twice about paying higher prices for something they know to be unhealthy in the first place. In short, it's not trying to change people, but rather just to "hold them more responsible" for their actions.

Like anything unhealthy and dangerous, these are activities that should be closely regulated and made safe, or at least discouraged if there is no safe alternative (like smoking or soda). I understand your point in bringing up things like camp fires and driving a car, but you have to realize that these are also activities which are regulated because they are dangerous. I hope you didn't think that there were age restrictions on getting a driver's license for no reason. In the end, you're right, it is no one's place to tell someone what they can or cannot do, so long as it doesn't disrupt the peace of others, and that's not the intention in this case. It's simply a form of regulation on an unhealthy industry, which I imagine would be preferable to the soda companies than having them follow strict guidelines that would make their products healthier. I mean, soda is almost as, if not more, unhealthy as cigarettes, but for some reason we're not as uncomfortable watching a 3 year old drink a Mountain Dew as we would be if he were puffing on a Camel.

Those articles don't address the main problem that health insurance is not akin to other forms of insurance, which do work well in a free market. As opposed to buying a home or car, which are clearly choices that one can make, people don't get to choose when they get sick or what with. Because of this, health insurance companies are basically free to A) deny access to whoever they want, which is often the people who actually need it and B) charge as much as they want because of the extravagant cost of most medical procedures. And, because they don't actually have goods which can be compared, the whole industry can, and would have incentives, to jack up prices because they're all selling the same shit. If the industry were to go completely deregulated it would basically bankrupt the middle-class and destroy the country. We don't even have a real free market system in the United States and things were already heading that way, and probably will continue even after reform passed.

[rawesome]

Edit: It's important here to distinguish that I'm not against trying to help people live healthier lives. Take the movie Super Size Me, great example of how you can change people's actions without coercion. A lot of people watched it and decided to severely cut back or completely eliminate their fast food intake. I will never disagree that sodas have harmful impacts on one's health, I will however disagree that we should force them to live their life how we want to. That will never stop me from trying to convince them though.
I never got that sense. You're fine, I don't think you're a bad guy or anything.

[rawesome]

I guess I should clarify here that the big thing with soda isn't just that it's bad, it's that it's only bad. Mountain biking, which you mentioned, is dangerous but has positive side effects from a health sense as it builds one's cardio and endurance and is a form of exercise. I've been considering going vegetarian because my family has a bad history of heart problems and I think it would be a good change for me, personally, but I wouldn't advocate a tax on red meat as a vegetarian or non-vegetarian because there are good things that red meat does. Soda, on the other hand, is basically 100% bad for people and doesn't really do anything positive for people, much like cigarettes. That's my biggest problem with pop.

[GeeBee]

Yes, I understand that soda has negative consequences. So does mountain biking, camp fire building, and driving cars. Through human action people adjust for risk based on their own (not yours, or some benevolent overlord) personal preferences. These are preferences that you can never POSSIBLY know. Suppose I LOVE soda and I love fighting dinosaurs. Who are you to tell me my life needs some new incentives so I act more in accord with what you want my life to be?

The best argument against that is "well health care is public and now your actions are borne by others".

So get government out of healthcare. Allow the market to regulate it.

Here, some links too:
http://mises.org/daily/3737
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/08/is-there-a-doc-in-the-house-a-response-to-krugman-on-obamacare.html

Edit: It's important here to distinguish that I'm not against trying to help people live healthier lives. Take the movie Super Size Me, great example of how you can change people's actions without coercion. A lot of people watched it and decided to severely cut back or completely eliminate their fast food intake. I will never disagree that sodas have harmful impacts on one's health, I will however disagree that we should force them to live their life how we want to. That will never stop me from trying to convince them though.

Except "the market" has a profit motive to keep people sick. As we've seen. You can't explain that away. You can't turn a profit on customers who don't come back.

[a narwhal]

ajsdfadf

[x togepi x]

More subsidies for fruits and green vegetables is what we need. If salads weren't so much more expensive than burgers, maybe people would eat better.

I don't know if this was covered by someone else because I didn't read the whole thread but I don't think you're right here.

There are a ton of social pressures to eat terrible food. Yeah, more subsidies might lower the price of veggies, which would rule, but lacking any reason to turn to them, most people would still ignore them. Even though it's healthy. I mean ask most dudes who go vegetarian about how people act like that makes them feminine. Look at how a giant greasy burger is american as fuck. hell, look at the popularity to put bacon all over everything.

lol @ the market anarchist.

[<*)))><]

A burger taste better then a salad.

[x togepi x]

no it doesn't. meat is disgusting

[<*)))><]

That is opinion, only way to settle what people prefer is a poll

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

That is opinion, only way to settle what people prefer is a poll

That feeling of an empty stomach eating up unused fat tastes better than a burger.

[<*)))><]

That feeling of an empty stomach eating up unused fat tastes better than a burger.
opinion

[x togepi x]

bad troll is bad.

[<*)))><]

bad troll is bad.
http://www.instantsfun.es/trollolol
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=70358042#post70358 042
So far people prefer burgers

[caveBEAR]

Fishboy is draining in his obnoxiousness, but I do prefer burger over salad. I usually slap lettuce, onions & tomatoes on there and call it a draw.

[<*)))><]

Not one vote for salad.

[open mind]

You're taking a lot of liberty in saying you know what's best for others. That's my point here. We -don't- know what is best for others, that is why I don't recommend we help people make "better choices". Do you see the hubris in that?

I'm sorry if theft makes you uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable too. That is why I oppose aggression :).

you're constantly taking a lot of liberty with the term stealing.

show me a case where it was found that a high sugar, high salt, high fat diet was found to be beneficial to someones health and you might have a case about society not knowing what's good for people.

[x togepi x]

http://www.instantsfun.es/trollolol
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=70358042#post70358 042
So far people prefer burgers

who cares?

You do a poll on this site between some bullshit trendy pop rock band and something with substance and the shitty pop band wins every time. That proves nothing.

[<*)))><]

who cares?

You do a poll on this site between some bullshit trendy pop rock band and something with substance and the shitty pop band wins every time. That proves nothing.
How would you go about seeing what people prefer?

Just admit you were wrong people like meat more than vegetables. Also a is salad $4.19 at Mcdonalds and the bigmac is $3.49 ($5.99 for the meal). If you include getting a drink with your salad compared to buying a #1 it is cheaper so wrong again.

[Machu505]

Big Macs cost $3.49? Go to fucking Taco Bell and get better shit than that for 89¢.

[bung]

How would you go about seeing what people prefer?

Just admit you were wrong people like meat more than vegetables. Also a is salad $4.19 at Mcdonalds and the bigmac is $3.49 ($5.99 for the meal). If you include getting a drink with your salad compared to buying a #1 it is cheaper so wrong again.

Don't bother. If tomorrow it was shown that eating your own shit is healthy, he'd argue how it tastes great.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Big Macs cost $3.49? Go to fucking Taco Bell and get better shit than that for 89¢.
Carl's Jr ftw. I think it's called Hardee's out east.

[bung]

Carl's Jr ftw. I think it's called Hardee's out east.

We have both Hardee's and Carl's Jr in MN. :shrug:

But are they related?

[birdman]

Lower income earners are the ones who typically engage in unhealthy diets, mainly because it is cheaper than eating healthy. Also, I am going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of habitual smokers make under $250,000 a year.

So when you tax things like soda, cigarettes, and fast food....you are taxing the lower and middle class.

Rich people can afford to eat healthy, and likely did not grow up in communities wear smoking was more accepted. So this tax has a much smaller effect on them.

Hooray for change!

[bung]

you're constantly taking a lot of liberty with the term stealing.

show me a case where it was found that a high sugar, high salt, high fat diet was found to be beneficial to someones health and you might have a case about society not knowing what's good for people.

It brings them pleasure. Maybe they prefer instant gratification over beneficial, long-term health consequences. That's the thing--what's "good" for a person cannot be limited to health, because health (for the vast majority of people) is not an end in itself. Health organizations would like us to believe that it is, but it simply isn't.

[Machu505]

Carl's Jr ftw. I think it's called Hardee's out east.

I generally find fast food burgers (barring Five Guys aka an orgasm in your mouth) to be disgusting, ESPECIALLY Hardee's. No offense.

[GuitarR0cker1]

We have both Hardee's and Carl's Jr in MN. :shrug:

But are they related?
I always thought they were for some reason...

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/11-01-06_-_Triple_Whopper_With_Cheese.JPG

http://trueslant.com/donovan/files/2009/08/kfc-doubledown2.jpg

http://jaksview3.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/20081013-baconfattybeaut.jpg

http://thefastertimes.com/meat/files/2009/06/five-guys-burger2.jpg

YUMMY!

[caveBEAR]

Can we all just take a moment to put the bickering aside and think about how amazing In 'N' Out Burger is? Can my fellow East-Coasters also join me in a :-(?

[bung]

Can we all just take a moment to put the bickering aside and think about how amazing In 'N' Out Burger is? Can my fellow East-Coasters also join me in a :-(?

Fast food isn't good. Don't say anything good about it. Ever. M-(

[caveBEAR]

Fast food isn't good. Don't say anything good about it. Ever. M-(

In 'N' Out Burger is my foster father. You'll never get me to badmouth that franchise.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

http://www.blogadilla.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/innout20x20.jpg

[x togepi x]

How would you go about seeing what people prefer?

Just admit you were wrong people like meat more than vegetables. Also a is salad $4.19 at Mcdonalds and the bigmac is $3.49 ($5.99 for the meal). If you include getting a drink with your salad compared to buying a #1 it is cheaper so wrong again.

Dude, you need to learn some reading comprehension.

In my first post I said that people prefer meat to vegetables. I went on to say they did this because THEY WERE SOCIALIZED TO.

[GeeBee]

http://www.blogadilla.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/innout20x20.jpg

Jesus god in heaven.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Jesus god in heaven.

Capitalists know how to get Americans hooked on salty fatty foods.

[bung]

In my first post I said that people prefer meat to vegetables. I went on to say they did this because THEY WERE SOCIALIZED TO.

Do you have any comment on why humans have incisors?

[open mind]

It brings them pleasure. Maybe they prefer instant gratification over beneficial, long-term health consequences. That's the thing--what's "good" for a person cannot be limited to health, because health (for the vast majority of people) is not an end in itself. Health organizations would like us to believe that it is, but it simply isn't.

i'm all for instant gratification, provided you acknowledge the costs and are willing to pay them.

just to be clear i'm not advocating taxes on unhealthy food. cutting subsidies makes more sense.

[x togepi x]

Do you have any comment on why humans have incisors?

because at one point in time we needed to eat meat? i've read vegetarian justifications for having them in the past but i don't remember them or can't speak to how scientific those justifications are now.

What I do know is that most people eat way more meat than they need to, i believe largely because of social factors, which was kind of my point. I'm not expecting everyone to become vegetarians (though that would rule) but increased consumption of vegetables would be a lot better in general, though i don't think this will happen because of those social factors.

[GeeBee]

Yes, I understand that soda has negative consequences. So does mountain biking, camp fire building, and driving cars. Through human action people adjust for risk based on their own (not yours, or some benevolent overlord) personal preferences. These are preferences that you can never POSSIBLY know. Suppose I LOVE soda and I love fighting dinosaurs. Who are you to tell me my life needs some new incentives so I act more in accord with what you want my life to be?

The best argument against that is "well health care is public and now your actions are borne by others".

So get government out of healthcare. Allow the market to regulate it.

Here, some links too:
http://mises.org/daily/3737
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/08/is-there-a-doc-in-the-house-a-response-to-krugman-on-obamacare.html

Edit: It's important here to distinguish that I'm not against trying to help people live healthier lives. Take the movie Super Size Me, great example of how you can change people's actions without coercion. A lot of people watched it and decided to severely cut back or completely eliminate their fast food intake. I will never disagree that sodas have harmful impacts on one's health, I will however disagree that we should force them to live their life how we want to. That will never stop me from trying to convince them though.

I'm still waiting for an answer as to how the market will effectively regulate healthcare, when the profit motive lies in people being sick, not in being well.

[Machu505]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/soda-tax.png

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

but... but... think of all that money lost by shareholders on sugar water!

[Disconsolate]

I'm still waiting for an answer as to how the market will effectively regulate healthcare, when the profit motive lies in people being sick, not in being well.
Wait what, insurance companies like paying out money....?

"Hey, I want to pool people's money together and lower their individual risk. I hope all their house's catch on fire so I can pay out all the money in claims! weeee".

Don't confuse the hybrid mix of government and health "insurance" we have with the actual purpose of insurance. Makes you wonder why Lasik Surgery is continually going down in price. Must be because it has massive government involvement and subsidization.

[Tha Handyman]

serious question,will they tax energy drinks?Cuz i dont really drink pop, but I do enjoy an energy drink about every other day

[caveBEAR]

serious question,will they tax energy drinks?Cuz i dont really drink pop, but I do enjoy an energy drink about every other day

If the energy drink contains sugar, then probably.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

serious question,will they tax energy drinks?Cuz i dont really drink pop, but I do enjoy an energy drink about every other day


Most likely, considering energy drinks have as much, if not more sugar than Coke and Pepsi (http://www.energyfiend.com/sugar-in-drinks)

[GeeBee]

Wait what, insurance companies like paying out money....?

"Hey, I want to pool people's money together and lower their individual risk. I hope all their house's catch on fire so I can pay out all the money in claims! weeee".

Don't confuse the hybrid mix of government and health "insurance" we have with the actual purpose of insurance. Makes you wonder why Lasik Surgery is continually going down in price. Must be because it has massive government involvement and subsidization.

Insurance companies are but one part of the healthcare industry. The industry as a whole benefits in the long run from a populace that remain return customers.
Where's the profit motive in a perpetually healthy patient for a drug company?

And let's not pretend that it's as cut and dry with insurance companies as you claim it is. If everyone was healthy, and if driving/owning a home were as safe as they supposedly wish it was in your analogy, they'd be run out of business.

And in my estimation, Lasik is going down in price because it's become affordable to a growing number of people. Scarcity is but one method of drumming up profit. Availability is another. See Starbucks.

Nevertheless, I agree that government subsidies should cease for industries that clearly need no stimulus.

[GeeBee]

If the energy drink contains sugar, then probably.

It's not sugar, dude, it's "electrolytes" and "carbs" and "vitamins" essential to keep me sweating like a horse in heat while I play shirtless b-ball with my douchey friends.

[caveBEAR]

It's not sugar, dude, it's "electrolytes" and "carbs" and "vitamins" essential to keep me sweating like a horse in heat while I play shirtless b-ball with my douchey friends.

How else are you going to combat that 2 o'clock feeling? Coffee? A splash of water on the face? More coffee? How about 5 Hour Energy. Sure, we're not backed by the FDA, but you don't like socialism anyway.

[GeeBee]

How else are you going to combat that 2 o'clock feeling? Coffee? A splash of water on the face? More coffee? How about 5 Hour Energy. Sure, we're not backed by the FDA, but you don't like socialism anyway.

Haha, I love that guy. "But how long will that last? 3? 4:30? 5? 10? Infinity? Garage? Will Smith? Try half now, see if you like it..."

[caveBEAR]

Haha, I love that guy. "But how long will that last? 3? 4:30? 5? 10? Infinity? Garage? Will Smith? Try half now, see if you like it..."

I wonder if the casting director was just upfront to the potential actors; 'look, we're searching for a gigantic douchebag'.

[GeeBee]

I wonder if the casting director was just upfront to the potential actors; 'look, we're searching for a gigantic douchebag'.

Hahaha, Then they probably had to have the director yell at him to take his flat-brimmed, side-cocked Yankees cap off for the shoot.

[Disconsolate]

Insurance companies are but one part of the healthcare industry. The industry as a whole benefits in the long run from a populace that remain return customers.
Where's the profit motive in a perpetually healthy patient for a drug company?

And let's not pretend that it's as cut and dry with insurance companies as you claim it is. If everyone was healthy, and if driving/owning a home were as safe as they supposedly wish it was in your analogy, they'd be run out of business.

And in my estimation, Lasik is going down in price because it's become affordable to a growing number of people. Scarcity is but one method of drumming up profit. Availability is another. See Starbucks.

Nevertheless, I agree that government subsidies should cease for industries that clearly need no stimulus.
Ah, but the same could be said about any industry. Wouldn't it suck for Office Depot if no one needed office supplies? Why aren't they colluding with other businesses in a big evil hegemony to force people to NEED their products? Why aren't all businesses doing this?

I would argue they aren't because the market prevents them from doing something so absurd. There isn't a big lobby in Washington for the "Office Supply Needs!". The only reason our medical industry is so distorted is due to decades of government involvement in an effort to make health care more affordable and available.

Edit: Lasik is going down because of economies of scale (learning by doing). I can almost 100% assure you if the government wrote up an "affordable lasik time!" bill for everyone the prices would cease to fall. It's odd but only in industries government gets involved do we fail to see economies of scale take over :/. Education anyone?

[GeeBee]

Ah, but the same could be said about any industry. Wouldn't it suck for Office Depot if no one needed office supplies? Why aren't they colluding with other businesses in a big evil hegemony to force people to NEED their products? Why aren't all businesses doing this?

I would argue they aren't because the market prevents them from doing something so absurd. There isn't a big lobby in Washington for the "Office Supply Needs!". The only reason our medical industry is so distorted is due to decades of government involvement in an effort to make health care more affordable and available.

Edit: Lasik is going down because of economies of scale (learning by doing). I can almost 100% assure you if the government wrote up an "affordable lasik time!" bill for everyone the prices would cease to fall. It's odd but only in industries government gets involved do we fail to see economies of scale take over :/. Education anyone?

Office supplies are not necessary for survival, so it's not an apt analogy. If you want to argue that the government is part of the problem in current health-care, I won't necessarily disagree, but if given the choice between an inept system of bureacrats who simply want to keep me healthy to keep me voting for them, and an inept system of HMO's who make a hefty buck when I either stay sick or kick the bucket, I'll take the former.

Further, I disagree with the mandate for insurance in the health-care bill. I'm a purist --- single payer or nothing.

[macabre]

The only reason our medical industry is so distorted is due to decades of government involvement in an effort to make health care more affordable and available.

You act as if government is the only cause for distorted prices when there is ample evidence that health care providers engage in supplier-induced demand by exploiting information asymmetries between them and their patients. Not to mention, the cost of health care has an inverse relationship with the level of government involvement in the insurance market, as evidenced by the costs of single-payer relative to multi-payer systems. That is not to say that costs in those countries are low because of government involvement, it's more likely the result of large risk pools and economies of scale, but that seems to indicate government involvement isn't the direct cause of those outrageous costs.

[mattmatumbo]

Office supplies are not necessary for survival, so it's not an apt analogy. If you want to argue that the government is part of the problem in current health-care, I won't necessarily disagree, but if given the choice between an inept system of bureacrats who simply want to keep me healthy to keep me voting for them, and an inept system of HMO's who make a hefty buck when I either stay sick or kick the bucket, I'll take the former.

Further, I disagree with the mandate for insurance in the health-care bill. I'm a purist --- single payer or nothing.

I fully agree.

[zion the lion]

I drink at least 5 sodas a day...theres no way in hell.

[Simulcast]

Health insurance should be governed by non-profit organizations. It should not be a "for-profit" enterprise, period. The government should have as little to do with it as possible.

[GeeBee]

Health insurance should be governed by non-profit organizations. It should not be a "for-profit" enterprise, period. The government should have as little to do with it as possible.
I'd be on board with that as well. Take the profit motive out of people's lives.

[Simulcast]

I'd be on board with that as well. Take the profit motive out of people's lives.

I'm as capitalist as they come, but health insurance should not be subject to a profit motive. Nor should it be subject to the machinations of government bureaucracy. Check out this (http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/12/public-health-insurance-personal-finance-financial-advisor-network-blue-shield.html) article.

[Disconsolate]

Office supplies are not necessary for survival, so it's not an apt analogy. If you want to argue that the government is part of the problem in current health-care, I won't necessarily disagree, but if given the choice between an inept system of bureacrats who simply want to keep me healthy to keep me voting for them, and an inept system of HMO's who make a hefty buck when I either stay sick or kick the bucket, I'll take the former.

Further, I disagree with the mandate for insurance in the health-care bill. I'm a purist --- single payer or nothing.
Couldn't you just as easily argue that bureaucrats want to keep you unhealthy so you'll keep clamoring for health reform and more power for them?

[Disconsolate]

You act as if government is the only cause for distorted prices when there is ample evidence that health care providers engage in supplier-induced demand by exploiting information asymmetries between them and their patients. Not to mention, the cost of health care has an inverse relationship with the level of government involvement in the insurance market, as evidenced by the costs of single-payer relative to multi-payer systems. That is not to say that costs in those countries are low because of government involvement, it's more likely the result of large risk pools and economies of scale, but that seems to indicate government involvement isn't the direct cause of those outrageous costs.
I will not disagree the companies play a role in distorting their own industries. The question is, how can they get away with it? Intense profits should attract competition. All these "problems" should show entrepreneurs that there is a lot of money to be made due to the inefficiencies we're currently experiencing. Why do they find theirselves unable to enter?

The only market power that survives over time is one reinforced by government. Government is deeply entrenched in our healthcare system. Give me protection from competition and I can assure you I'll charge more.

[GeeBee]

Couldn't you just as easily argue that bureaucrats want to keep you unhealthy so you'll keep clamoring for health reform and more power for them?

Not really. Job security isn't the same as trying to up my bottom line.

[GeeBee]

I'm as capitalist as they come, but health insurance should not be subject to a profit motive. Nor should it be subject to the machinations of government bureaucracy. Check out this (http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/12/public-health-insurance-personal-finance-financial-advisor-network-blue-shield.html) article.
Great article. Lays out a great case, one which I could get behind. If there's a way to get profit-motive out of it, as well as government bureaucracy, I'm for it.

Don't get me wrong...I have no love of "big government". However, more and more the choice is being posed by the current system in the U.S. between big government and greedy corporations. As much as I may abhor the former, I"ll always abhor the latter, since profitizing everything under the sun seems to be modus operandi.

[Disconsolate]

Not really. Job security isn't the same as trying to up my bottom line.
Clarify.

[GeeBee]

Clarify.
A pencil pusher in the socialized-medicine state of Sweden hoping people don't suddenly "stop getting sick" (which they won't) doesn't scare me half as much as the CEO of my insurance company looking for ways to skimp on my healthcare so as not to hurt his bottom line.

[repr1ze]

I don't drink soda, so I'm totally in support of this :-)

Replace "drink soda" with "like jews"

[repr1ze]

A pencil pusher in the socialized-medicine state of Sweden hoping people don't suddenly "stop getting sick" (which they won't) doesn't scare me half as much as the CEO of my insurance company looking for ways to skimp on my healthcare so as not to hurt his bottom line.

If the insurance market wasn't completely in bed with the government you wouldn't have a problem switching insurance.

[GeeBee]

If the insurance market wasn't completely in bed with the government you wouldn't have a problem switching insurance.
Fair enough. I think one of them should go away. And since I like government more than I like those motherfuckers...

[repr1ze]

Fair enough. I think one of them should go away. And since I like government more than I like those motherfuckers...

Yeah it feels like it at times. But they probably would be less "motherfuckerish" if they weren't completely in bed with government.

[GeeBee]

Yeah it feels like it at times. But they probably would be less "motherfuckerish" if they weren't completely in bed with government.

Yeah, bro, like, totally.

[repr1ze]

Yeah, bro, like, totally.

Woot.

[tkamB]

Replace "drink soda" with "like jews"

How does not liking jews have an impact on me supporting a soda tax?

And I was kidding anyway that was what the :-) was for.

[repr1ze]

How does not liking jews have an impact on me supporting a soda tax?

And I was kidding anyway that was what the :-) was for.

Yeah I just thought it was funny haha

[Disconsolate]

A pencil pusher in the socialized-medicine state of Sweden hoping people don't suddenly "stop getting sick" (which they won't) doesn't scare me half as much as the CEO of my insurance company looking for ways to skimp on my healthcare so as not to hurt his bottom line.
People definitely pick equivalent actions with lowest cost, I will not disagree there.

You're missing the point that the only reason the insurance companies can get away with things like that is because of government, not because lack of government.

[Tec Mason]

Capitalists know how to get Americans hooked on salty fatty foods.

The government subsidizes the meat, corn, and dairy industries which increases the supply of these products beyond the normal market quantity. On top of this, Insurance regulations prevent insurance companies from charging you a higher premium for eating unhealthy fatty foods. Why does the government have these regulations? Because people pay off legislatures to support there business. Any "capitalist" that uses the long dick of the law to benefit themselves at the expense of others is no capitalist at all. He is a political parasite.

[<*)))><]

The government subsidizes the meat, corn, and dairy industries which increases the supply of these products beyond the normal market quantity. On top of this, Insurance regulations prevent insurance companies from charging you a higher premium for eating unhealthy fatty foods. Why does the government have these regulations? Because people pay off legislatures to support there business. Any "capitalist" that uses the long dick of the law to benefit themselves at the expense of others is no capitalist at all. He is a political parasite.
That is why they pay farmer to not grow crops.

[Disconsolate]

That is why they pay farmer to not grow crops.
Head. Explodes.

[xemilylovespopx]

That is why they pay farmer to not grow crops.

Indeed. Farmers often have to grow the subsidy rather than the crop.. And agribusiness takes up the majority of the subsidies any way, so the only way to small town farmer can succeed is to do the same.

[saysmydoctor]

LEAVE MY DOUBLE DOWNS ALONE. LEAVE MY SUPER SIZED SODAS ALONE. LEAVE MY BIG MACS ALONE. LEAVE ME ALONE.

/hannity

[Republicanman]

Ah, the next progression in sin tax. Because the intellectuals know best ;)

[repr1ze]

That is why they pay farmer to not grow crops.

I have no words.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Ah, the next progression in sin tax. Because the intellectuals know best ;)

We do.

[caveBEAR]

We do.

Intellectuals? Peh! I want the advice of Bruno, the slow janitor from the elementary school. Climate change? Not real. Socialism? Happening. Eating healthy? Sure, if you're a gay.

TAKE THAT INTELLECTUALISM!!

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Frankly, I can identify with Republican Man... ignorance is bliss. A 20 oz. bottle of Pepsi equals 250 calories, 70 grams of sugar. Do I want to know what I am ingesting into my body? Hell no. I want to think that a simple bottle of Pepsi means nothing but a thirst-quenching treat. If the government want to tax what pleases my taste buds, then to Hell with them! Who cares if I gain weight and suffer from diabetes, thus causing strain within the health care industry... as long as my taste buds remain happy!

[Mitch]

I feel like a soda tax would be more effective than a lot of other excise taxes if not simply because cost-conscious adults will buy less for their sugar-craving hyperactive children.

[open mind]

Frankly, I can identify with Republican Man... ignorance is bliss. A 20 oz. bottle of Pepsi equals 250 calories, 70 grams of sugar. Do I want to know what I am ingesting into my body? Hell no. I want to think that a simple bottle of Pepsi means nothing but a thirst-quenching treat. If the government want to tax what pleases my taste buds, then to Hell with them! Who cares if I gain weight and suffer from diabetes, thus causing strain within the health care industry... as long as my taste buds remain happy!

taxing just seems like the wrong way to go about addressing the issue. why subsidize corn to make soda and meat cheap and then turn around and tax the soda and meat?

[caveBEAR]

I love how people who are all for extra taxes on cigarettes flip out about soda taxes. Guess we haven't demonized Pepsi to the point of Marlboro yet. :shrug:

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

taxing just seems like the wrong way to go about addressing the issue. why subsidize corn to make soda and meat cheap and then turn around and tax the soda and meat?

taxing may not be the answer, but consumers should be aware of what they are consuming.

[open mind]

taxing may not be the answer, but consumers should be aware of what they are consuming.

most probably don't realize what goes into the production and distribution of unhealthy food but i think people know that lots of sugar, fat, and salt is bad for them. :shrug:

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

most probably don't realize what goes into the production and distribution of unhealthy food but i think people know that lots of sugar, fat, and salt is bad for them. :shrug:

doesn't seem to stop them from consuming them

[open mind]

doesn't seem to stop them from consuming them

why would it? i know i consume my fair share of meat, soda, deep fried salty things, tobacco, alcohol, and drugs despite knowing they aren't good for me.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

why would it? i know i consume my fair share of meat, soda, deep fried salty things, tobacco, alcohol, and drugs despite knowing they aren't good for me.

That's the beauty of it... we have the right and opportunity to do it.

[open mind]

That's the beauty of it... we have the right and opportunity to do it.

what exactly are we talking about again? i seem to have somehow lost the plot, haha.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

what exactly are we talking about again? i seem to have somehow lost the plot, haha.

Americans consume garbage, but damn if I'd try to stop them.

[caveBEAR]

Americans consume garbage, but damn if I'd try to stop them.

Same could be said for television, news, movies, music, art...etc.,..etc...

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Same could be said for television, news, movies, music, art...etc.,..etc...

exactly

[GeeBee]

taxing may not be the answer, but consumers should be aware of what they are consuming.

New York City's mandatory display of calorie count apparently didn't do the trick...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/opinion/15loewenstein.html

[caveBEAR]

New York City's mandatory display of calorie count apparently didn't do the trick...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/opinion/15loewenstein.html

A majority of people don't know how many calories they're supposed to consume in a day, so posting calories doesn't really do anything. It's just a meaningless number to most people.

[GeeBee]

A majority of people don't know how many calories they're supposed to consume in a day, so posting calories doesn't really do anything. It's just a meaningless number to most people.

I go based on how big a donut I can turn my belly into while sitting. Seems to work.

[caveBEAR]

I go based on how big a donut I can turn my belly into while sitting. Seems to work.

I have just always found it ridiculous that all these fast food places, some restaurants, certain foods, etc., are all being forced to (or by their own choosing) display how many calories are in them, but you would be hard pressed to find a chart or picture anywhere with the amount of calories someone should intake daily, so that the calories would actually have context.

:shrug:

[bung]

I have just always found it ridiculous that all these fast food places, some restaurants, certain foods, etc., are all being forced to (or by their own choosing) display how many calories are in them, but you would be hard pressed to find a chart or picture anywhere with the amount of calories someone should intake daily, so that the calories would actually have context.

:shrug:

I thought everyone knew it's about 2000? A little more if you're an exercise freak, a little less if you're a decrepit old lady.

[x togepi x]

I thought everyone knew it's about 2000? A little more if you're an exercise freak, a little less if you're a decrepit old lady.

I think 2000 is an average and a lot more than most people need. I don't know, like my girlfriend calculated hers to be way lower than 2000 and she's not terribly unhealthy or anything.

[bung]

I think 2000 is an average and a lot more than most people need. I don't know, like my girlfriend calculated hers to be way lower than 2000 and she's not terribly unhealthy or anything.

Yeah, definitely. Back in high school, when I played football and was running 3+ miles a day, I bet I was closer to 3000. I could literally eat whole pizzas, fast-food, whatever and not gain a single pound.

[x togepi x]

Yeah, definitely. Back in high school, when I played football and was running 3+ miles a day, I bet I was closer to 3000. I could literally eat whole pizzas, fast-food, whatever and not gain a single pound.

yeah, i'm fairly certain it's so contextual that people probably need to go to a doctor to figure it out. i know there are simple tests that can give pretty good estimates.

[caveBEAR]

I still think if people are too stupid to realize 'Big Mac = Bad', they're probably too stupid to figure out their recommended calorie intake.

[peder458]

I still think if people are too stupid to realize 'Big Mac = Bad', they're probably too stupid to figure out their recommended calorie intake.

but the big mac guy on supersize me...??? he was healthy as shit! :rolleyes:

[bung]

I still think if people are too stupid to realize 'Big Mac = Bad', they're probably too stupid to figure out their recommended calorie intake.

I don't think it's that people don't realize it--it's just that they don't give a shit.

[x togepi x]

I don't think it's that people don't realize it--it's just that they don't give a shit.

exactly.

or they're poor and fast food=the best meal they're going to get that day/week.

[.invisible ink.]

Sorry to chime in here but all this talk about calories makes me think some of you need to get a new perspective on calorie requirements and the fact that, despite what you may have heard, not all calories are considered equal. If you have a little time on your hands and you're interested in nutrition, I highly suggest reading a book called "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. It will completely blow your mind. I forewarn you that it's about 468 pages and kind of sciency but it's interesting and will change the way you think about nutrition, fitness, and every bite you put in your mouth.

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279708021&sr=8-1

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Starred Review. Taubes's eye-opening challenge to widely accepted ideas on nutrition and weight loss is as provocative as was his 2001 NewYork Times Magazine article, What if It's All a Big Fat Lie? Taubes (Bad Science), a writer for Science magazine, begins by showing how public health data has been misinterpreted to mark dietary fat and cholesterol as the primary causes of coronary heart disease. Deeper examination, he says, shows that heart disease and other diseases of civilization appear to result from increased consumption of refined carbohydrates: sugar, white flour and white rice. When researcher John Yudkin announced these results in the 1950s, however, he was drowned out by the conventional wisdom. Taubes cites clinical evidence showing that elevated triglyceride levels, rather than high total cholesterol, are associated with increased risk of heart disease-but measuring triglycerides is more difficult than measuring cholesterol. Taubes says that the current U.S. obesity epidemic actually consists of a very small increase in the average body mass index. Taube's arguments are lucid and well supported by lengthy notes and bibliography. His call for dietary advice that is based on rigorous science, not century-old preconceptions about the penalties of gluttony and sloth is bound to be echoed loudly by many readers. Illus. (Oct. 2)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400040787/sr=8-1/qid=1279708021/ref=dp_proddesc_1?ie=UTF8&n=283155&qid=1279708021&sr=8-1) edition.

From The Washington Post

In 2002, science journalist Gary Taubes published an article entitled "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?" He argued that reputable scientists were coming around to the idea, advanced by diet gurus like Dr. Robert Atkins, that carbohydrates, not fat, are the ultimate dietary villain. If so, he wrote, "the ongoing epidemic of obesity in America and elsewhere is not, as we are constantly told, due simply to a collective lack of will power and a failure to exercise. Rather it occurred . . . because the public health authorities told us unwittingly, but with the best of intentions, to eat precisely those foods that would make us fat, and we did."
The article helped revive the low-carb craze. Bread vanished from restaurant tables, and "dieters" began ordering steaks with a side of bacon. Many lost weight and became believers, but many did not, and the conventional wisdom on how to lose weight shifted only slightly.
In Good Calories, Bad Calories, Taubes tries to bury the idea that a low-fat diet promotes weight loss and better health. Obesity is caused, he argues, not by the quantity of calories you eat but by the quality. Carbohydrates, particularly refined ones like white bread and pasta, raise insulin levels, promoting the storage of fat.
Taubes is a relentless researcher, shining a light on flaws in the scientific literature. For example, he charges that when scientists figured out how to measure cholesterol in the blood, they became "fixated on the accumulation of cholesterol in the arteries as the cause of heart disease, despite considerable evidence to the contrary."
He also reveals how charismatic personalities can force the acceptance of unproven theories. For instance, nutritionist Jean Mayer persuaded Americans that exercise leads to weight loss when in fact, writes Taubes, exercising may increase hunger and calorie intake. According to a 2000 review of the medical literature, "some studies imply that physical activity might inhibit weight gain . . . some that it might accelerate weight gain; and some that it has no effect whatsoever." Yet the latest government dietary guidelines, released in 2005, recommend 60 to 90 minutes a day of moderately intense exercise and a low-calorie diet to achieve weight loss. Once again, Taubes shows, conventional wisdom wins out.
Good Calories, Bad Calories goes a long way toward breaking the link between obesity, gluttony and sloth by demonstrating that genes, hormones and chemistry play as much of a role in weight gain as behavior does. Taubes's tales of lame science and flawed laboratory tests are at times brilliant and enlightening. But they can also become repetitive and wearying. In the end, the most compelling case Taubes builds is one against stark dietary advice of any kind; nothing simple can capture the complex reasons for the epidemic rise in obesity. H.L. Mencken once said, "There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong." Taubes cites this quote in his book; he, and all of us, would do well to remember it.

[bung]

Sorry to chime in here but all this talk about calories makes me think some of you need to get a new perspective on calorie requirements and the fact that, despite what you may have heard, not all calories are considered equal. If you have a little time on your hands and you're interested in nutrition, I highly suggest reading a book called "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. It will completely blow your mind. I forewarn you that it's about 468 pages and kind of sciency but it's interesting and will change the way you think about nutrition, fitness, and every bite you put in your mouth.

:yawn:

Eat less, exercise more, and avoid getting fat.

[<*)))><]

exactly.

or they're poor and fast food=the best meal they're going to get that day/week.
Or they don't give a shit and could spend the same amount cooking at home.

[.invisible ink.]

:yawn:

Eat less, exercise more, and avoid getting fat.

that's rather arrogant and incorrect (yet extremely common) advice unfortunately. in fact, when studied, obese subjects actually consume less calories than their normal-weight counterparts and yet were still unable to maintain a normal metabolism and obtain fat loss. If it were really that simple, we wouldn't have a society that is rapidly blimping out. you can't blame it all on laziness and unwillingness to adhere to a "healthy" diet.

it's not so much how much you consume but *what* you consume which makes the biggest impact on health.

honestly, check out the book i rec'd, it's worth reading and educating yourself. there's a lot of information that has been kept out of the public consciousness which could really change the way we live and could make a difference when dealing with the "Western diseases" such as obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and even cancer which are becoming more and more prevalent.

[bung]

that's rather arrogant and incorrect (yet extremely common) advice unfortunately. in fact, when studied, obese subjects actually consume less calories than their normal-weight counterparts and yet were still unable to maintain a normal metabolism and obtain fat loss. If it were really that simple, we wouldn't have a society that is rapidly blimping out. you can't blame it all on laziness and unwillingness to adhere to a "healthy" diet.

it's not so much how much you consume but *what* you consume which makes the biggest impact on health.

honestly, check out the book i rec'd, it's worth reading and educating yourself. there's a lot of information that has been kept out of the public consciousness which could really change the way we live and could make a difference when dealing with the "Western diseases" such as obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and even cancer which are becoming more and more prevalent.

get obese on a 500-calorie diet. i dare you.

[.invisible ink.]

get obese on a 500-calorie diet. i dare you.

people DO though! that's what the scariest part is.

[bung]

people DO though! that's what the scariest part is.

very very rarely.

[.invisible ink.]

very very rarely.

but the mere fact that it's possible means that there are some extremely flawed practices of thermodynamics and physics going on within our bodies. it pretty much proves the point that all calories are not created equal and that calories in does not equate to calories out. Our bodies have a mechanism which can sense when they are being starved which makes them retain all the calories they can as well as the opposite - if a person exercises to burn more calories, their body is designed to do whatever it takes to maintain "optimal" weight (not always optimal in our opinion but that's another story) so if you burn off 500 calories by physical activity your body can and will figure out a way to slow down the amount of calories it burns to stay where it wants to be. Haven't you ever met an extremely skinny person who can eat 5,000 calories and not gain weight? It's the same mechanism at work. Our bodies' processes are far more intelligent than we give them credit for and there is still a lot that we are trying to learn with how hormones regulate metabolism.

[bung]

but the mere fact that it's possible means that there are some extremely flawed practices of thermodynamics and physics going on within our bodies. it pretty much proves the point that all calories are not created equal and that calories in does not equate to calories out. Our bodies have a mechanism which can sense when they are being starved which makes them retain all the calories they can as well as the opposite - if a person exercises to burn more calories, our bodies are designed to do whatever it takes to maintain "optimal" weight (not always optimal in our opinions but that's another story) so if you burn off 500 calories your body will figure out a way to slow down the amount of calories it burns to stay where it wants to be. Haven't you ever met an extremely skinny person who can eat 5,000 calories and not gain weight? It's the same mechanism at work. Our bodies' processes are far more intelligent than we give them credit for and there is still a lot that we are trying to learn with how hormones regulate metabolism.

99% of people that eat 500 calories a day will never become obese. so no, your point makes no sense. people eat too much god damn food and don't exercise enough.

[open mind]

but the mere fact that it's possible means that there are some extremely flawed practices of thermodynamics and physics going on within our bodies. it pretty much proves the point that all calories are not created equal and that calories in does not equate to calories out. Our bodies have a mechanism which can sense when they are being starved which makes them retain all the calories they can as well as the opposite - if a person exercises to burn more calories, our bodies are designed to do whatever it takes to maintain "optimal" weight (not always optimal in our opinions but that's another story) so if you burn off 500 calories your body will figure out a way to slow down the amount of calories it burns to stay where it wants to be. Haven't you ever met an extremely skinny person who can eat 5,000 calories and not gain weight? It's the same mechanism at work. Our bodies' processes are far more intelligent than we give them credit for and there is still a lot that we are trying to learn with how hormones regulate metabolism.

i'm with you on people having different metabolisms but the rest seems like a stretch, because i think most cases of unexplainable weight gain are generally tied to hormone imbalance or disease.

at this point i tend to think nutritional science (like neuroscience) is a bit to immature and susceptible to marketing to make many definitive statements.

[.invisible ink.]

99% of people that eat 500 calories a day will never become obese. so no, your point makes no sense. people eat too much god damn food and don't exercise enough.

i'd love to know where you got your statistics! :-d

people eat too much of *the wrong food* and don't exercise enough. i will grant you that concession.

[.invisible ink.]

i'm with you on people having different metabolisms but the rest seems like a stretch, because i think most cases of unexplainable weight gain are generally tied to hormone imbalance or disease.

at this point i tend to think nutritional science (like neuroscience) is a bit to immature and susceptible to marketing to make many definitive statements.

do you think it's possible to instigate a hormonal imbalance (i.e., create insulin-resistance) by eating the wrong diet?

[open mind]

do you think it's possible to instigate a hormonal imbalance (i.e., create insulin-resistance) by eating the wrong diet?

i wouldn't rule out the possibility. there's all sorts of stuff that can get into our bodies and screw things up.

[bung]

i'd love to know where you got your statistics! :-d

people eat too much of *the wrong food* and don't exercise enough. i will grant you that concession.

i get my statistics from the database of common sense. eat whatever food you choose. you won't become obese or even fat because a normal adult, human body needs more energy than 500 calories to even run its routine, internal operations properly. the body will certainly not begin to create excess fat deposits when it would NEED those deposits to, for example, keep its internal temperature stable.

[.invisible ink.]

i get my statistics from the database of common sense. eat whatever food you choose. you won't become obese or even fat because a normal adult, human body needs more energy than 500 calories to even run its routine, internal operations properly. the body will certainly not begin to create excess fat deposits when it would NEED those deposits to, for example, keep its internal temperature stable.

you're speaking only about straight up starvation. yes, eventually at a certain point in time, when a body is receiving less than its basal metabolic requirements it will burn through its stores of muscle and fat. with enough time the heart muscle will be destroyed causing the starved person to perish but that's an extreme case and unless you're aiming for killing someone, that method of weight loss is pretty risky and unsustainable. try bringing that person back to a normal caloric intake and see just how long it takes for them to gain again - only this time, it won't be muscle, it will be mostly fat.

[bung]

you're speaking only about straight up starvation. yes, eventually at a certain point in time, when a body is receiving less than its basal metabolic requirements it will burn through its stores of muscle and fat. with enough time the heart muscle will be destroyed causing the starved person to perish but that's an extreme case and unless you're aiming for killing someone, that method of weight loss is pretty risky and unsustainable. try bringing that person back to a normal caloric intake and see just how long it takes for them to gain again - only this time, it won't be muscle, it will be mostly fat.

of course it's extreme because it demonstrates my point. sorry, but you're just backpedaling now since you realized i was right. no matter the food, a certain level of calorie intake will not result in weight gain. doesn't matter the food. and a person doesn't need to starve themselves in order to do it successfully, either. most people find this difficult, however, since we have an excess of food and food tastes fucking good, so they eat it for pleasure not necessity.

and i'm not talking about weight loss. i'm talking about avoiding weight gain, which is far easier to manage than the former.

i've now been up for 23 hours and am going to bed. night night.

[Jason Tate]

If it works, we have healthier people and more money to spend on them. If it doesn't, we just have more money to offset to costs of obese people's health problems. Win/win situation.
I like this.

[.invisible ink.]

of course it's extreme because it demonstrates my point. sorry, but you're just backpedaling now since you realized i was right. no matter the food, a certain level of calorie intake will not result in weight gain. doesn't matter the food. and a person doesn't need to starve themselves in order to do it successfully, either. most people find this difficult, however, since we have an excess of food and food tastes fucking good, so they eat it for pleasure not necessity.

and i'm not talking about weight loss. i'm talking about avoiding weight gain, which is far easier to manage than the former.

i've now been up for 23 hours and am going to bed. night night.

i'm not backpedaling because giving a person only 500 calories is not sustainable. The person is eventually going to die on such few calories - especially if you're speaking of a person at normal body weight, they're just going to die sooner than someone with extra body mass. I disagree again about what food is given. Food has a direct impact on hormone levels which control metabolism and yes, at 500 calories, you're not getting much of any food to make a difference, but we can't rationally discuss living for any period of time at such a reduced level though so your point is meaningless. Pick a more reasonable number and we'll go from there.

sweet dreams.

[bung]

i'm not backpedaling because giving a person only 500 calories is not sustainable. The person is eventually going to die on such few calories - especially if you're speaking of a person at normal body weight, they're just going to die sooner than someone with extra body mass. I disagree again about what food is given. Food has a direct impact on hormone levels which control metabolism and yes, at 500 calories, you're not getting much of any food to make a difference, but we can't rationally discuss living for any period of time at such a reduced level though so your point is meaningless. Pick a more reasonable number and we'll go from there.

sweet dreams.

I think you'd be surprised by just how long a person could live on 500 calories a day. But maybe one day the common sense will hit you like a wet, sloppy fish that the number one thing making people obese is eating too many calories, no matter where they're coming from. Until then, I can't be bothered with your inanity.

[open mind]

I think you'd be surprised by just how long a person could live on 500 calories a day. But maybe one day the common sense will hit you like a wet, sloppy fish that the number one thing making people obese is eating too many calories, no matter where they're coming from. Until then, I can't be bothered with your inanity.

i mostly agree with you (in terms of this outlandish scenario), but i think you're being to emphatic with your arguments......we know don't really KNOW that much about nutritional science. one decade we're told something is better for us (margarine is a good example) and the next we're told it might actually make certain conditions worse. some populations have had thousands of years to adapt to a carbohydrate rich diet while others have lived on mostly meat and fat up to the last generation so i don't think it's a stretch to think that there might be some difference in biological response to the modern worlds diet.

[bung]

i mostly agree with you (in terms of this outlandish scenario), but i think you're being to emphatic with your arguments......we know don't really KNOW that much about nutritional science. one decade we're told something is better for us (margarine is a good example) and the next we're told it might actually make certain conditions worse. some populations have had thousands of years to adapt to a carbohydrate rich diet while others have lived on mostly meat and fat up to the last generation so i don't think it's a stretch to think that there might be some difference in biological response to the modern worlds diet.

Yeah, true. Apologists for our obesity epidemic just sort of irritate me. :/

[open mind]

Yeah, true. Apologists for our obesity epidemic just sort of irritate me. :/

i don't think invisible ink (i don't know names and in the political forum i try to keep it that way) is taking the stance of an apologist so much as she's subscribing to a relatively new way of looking at diet......that said, i'm always suspicious of diet gurus as they usually stand to make large piles of money off of the converted.

[.invisible ink.]

I think you'd be surprised by just how long a person could live on 500 calories a day. But maybe one day the common sense will hit you like a wet, sloppy fish that the number one thing making people obese is eating too many calories, no matter where they're coming from. Until then, I can't be bothered with your inanity.

i think you're completely missing the point. there are a *lot* of factors involved in why one person becomes obese versus another with the same caloric intake and activity level does not. Calories only play one part in it.

Yeah, true. Apologists for our obesity epidemic just sort of irritate me. :/

I most certainly am not an apologist for our obesity epidemic in the slightest. you of all people should know that i am passionate about educating people to *avoid* becoming a statistic. I think there is a lot of information that has been buried that can actually help people. I'd rather do my part to help them than just write them off as a lost cause because they've earned a label of "lazy" or "gluttonous" which may be the case for some but certainly not all overweight individuals, but I could make the same claim for naturally thin folks as well.

i mostly agree with you (in terms of this outlandish scenario), but i think you're being to emphatic with your arguments......we know don't really KNOW that much about nutritional science. one decade we're told something is better for us (margarine is a good example) and the next we're told it might actually make certain conditions worse. some populations have had thousands of years to adapt to a carbohydrate rich diet while others have lived on mostly meat and fat up to the last generation so i don't think it's a stretch to think that there might be some difference in biological response to the modern worlds diet.

i don't think invisible ink (i don't know names and in the political forum i try to keep it that way) is taking the stance of an apologist so much as she's subscribing to a relatively new way of looking at diet......that said, i'm always suspicious of diet gurus as they usually stand to make large piles of money off of the converted.

thank you open mind, you are exactly correct. I would encourage you on the other hand to revisit the book I have been discussing because in fact, it was most certainly not written by a "diet guru" and was written by a journalist who did an incredible amount of research to write this work. He goes so far to state that he did not go into the book knowing what the outcome would be, meaning, he was not already convinced one way or the other as to why people get fat and what we can do to prevent it.

You might be interested in reading the two magazine articles he published prior to writing his book: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CDwQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnutritionandhealth .info%2Fdownloads%2Fsoftsciencefat. pdf&ei=jBhITP3IKsaqlAeawYWxCw&usg=AFQjCNFqjRDbtsqLEkGBPAbnYt7LTRO MRA

i am honestly trying to get people to think outside of the box. this is the politics forum where people should be and hopefully are questioning the bullshit dogma that's fed to them on a daily basis by the powers that be. unfortunately, what to consume has also been manipulated in the same manner they manipulate everything else.

[bung]

i think you're completely missing the point. there are a *lot* of factors involved in why one person becomes obese versus another with the same caloric intake and activity level does not. Calories only play one part in it.

calorie intake and activity level is by far the most important. other factors play a role, obviously, but seriously, go talk to your doctor.

I most certainly am not an apologist for our obesity epidemic in the slightest. you of all people should know that i am passionate about educating people to *avoid* becoming a statistic. I think there is a lot of information that has been buried that can actually help people. I'd rather do my part to help them than just write them off as a lost cause because they've earned a label of "lazy" or "gluttonous" which may be the case for some but certainly not all overweight individuals, but I could make the same claim for naturally thin folks as well.

are you going to stick to your terms, or continue to grossly mix-up "overweight" and "obese?"

thank you open mind, you are exactly correct. I would encourage you on the other hand to revisit the book I have been discussing because in fact, it was most certainly not written by a "diet guru" and was written by a journalist who did an incredible amount of research to write this work. He goes so far to state that he did not go into the book knowing what the outcome would be, meaning, he was not already convinced one way or the other as to why people get fat and what we can do to prevent it.

i am honestly trying to get people to think outside of the box. this is the politics forum where people should be and hopefully are questioning the bullshit dogma that's fed to them on a daily basis by the powers that be. unfortunately, what to consume has also been manipulated in the same manner they manipulate everything else.

That's the irony. No one needs to think "outside the box" to avoid getting obese. It's not some fucking magical process requiring extensive research to validate and do successfully.

[.invisible ink.]

calorie intake and activity level is by far the most important. other factors play a role, obviously, but seriously, go talk to your doctor.

my doctor, along with a growing number of medical professionals, have begun listening to the facts and are now encouraging the consumption of a low carbohydrate diet to promote health. trust me, this is something i have discussed before with my doctor and recently even.


are you going to stick to your terms, or continue to grossly mix-up "overweight" and "obese?"

i don't really see the big difference honestly. overweight is just a stop on the way to obesity. there are still health problems associated with being overweight.

That's the irony. No one needs to think "outside the box" to avoid getting obese. It's not some fucking magical process requiring extensive research to validate and do successfully.

that's been the common mindset for the past 70 years but why do we have a growing epidemic on our hands if the answer is widely known? i don't know why you feel the need to argue the fact that there is certainly more involved than just caloric intake and activity level when it comes to getting fat. it's honestly more about *what* you eat than anything else. Why were there no obese Innuit people, Pima Indians, or Aborigines, or Masai African woodsmen running around until the "civilized" man came in with their foods? Could it not be perhaps that we were not intended to consume as much sugar and refined carbohydrates and even as many vegetables as we do in this age of excess? That's really all I'm getting at. The diet plays such a great part in determining whether someone is going to become fat or not. It's not cause for an argument really.

BTW, it is literally impossible to get fat eating only a diet of meat and fat despite how many calories consumed and it's pretty damn healthy too. The only vitamin you will not be receiving is Vitamin C but you won't be using it up as much either.

[bung]

my doctor, along with a growing number of medical professionals, have begun listening to the facts and are now encouraging the consumption of a low carbohydrate diet to promote health. trust me, this is something i have discussed before with my doctor and recently even.

I bet he/she said to exercise more. I bet he/she thinks the obese consume too many calories.

i don't really see the big difference honestly. overweight is just a stop on the way to obesity. there are still health problems associated with being overweight.

That's your problem. You don't recognize the incredible difference between being 10 or 20 pounds overweight and being obese. And you clearly don't recognize the lifestyle that facilitates such a difference.

that's been the common mindset for the past 70 years but why do we have a growing epidemic on our hands if the answer is widely known? i don't know why you feel the need to argue the fact that there is certainly more involved than just caloric intake and activity level when it comes to getting fat. it's honestly more about *what* you eat than anything else. Why were there no obese Innuit people, Pima Indians, or Aborigines, or Masai African woodsmen running around until the "civilized" man came in with their foods? Could it not be perhaps that we were not intended to consume as much sugar and refined carbohydrates and even as many vegetables as we do in this age of excess? That's really all I'm getting at. The diet plays such a great part in determining whether someone is going to become fat or not. It's not cause for an argument really.

Buahahahaha! Yes, continue to compare their lifestyle to the average American. No, please. Continue.

BTW, it is literally impossible to get fat eating only a diet of meat and fat despite how many calories consumed and it's pretty damn healthy too. The only vitamin you will not be receiving is Vitamin C but you won't be using it up as much either.

Again, excuse me, but.... buahahahahahah!

[open mind]

thank you open mind, you are exactly correct. I would encourage you on the other hand to revisit the book I have been discussing because in fact, it was most certainly not written by a "diet guru" and was written by a journalist who did an incredible amount of research to write this work. He goes so far to state that he did not go into the book knowing what the outcome would be, meaning, he was not already convinced one way or the other as to why people get fat and what we can do to prevent it.

You might be interested in reading the two magazine articles he published prior to writing his book: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CDwQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnutritionandhealth .info%2Fdownloads%2Fsoftsciencefat. pdf&ei=jBhITP3IKsaqlAeawYWxCw&usg=AFQjCNFqjRDbtsqLEkGBPAbnYt7LTRO MRA

i am honestly trying to get people to think outside of the box. this is the politics forum where people should be and hopefully are questioning the bullshit dogma that's fed to them on a daily basis by the powers that be. unfortunately, what to consume has also been manipulated in the same manner they manipulate everything else.
if the book has an overriding message i'm inclined to take it with a grain of salt, but i've been strained for reading recs as of late
so i might take you up on that.

i agree that market forces dominate our diet in a perverted way....i just have trouble trusting those who think they have the "answer" to solve it..........because as i've already said nutritional science isn't an exact science.

[.invisible ink.]

I bet he/she said to exercise more. I bet he/she thinks the obese consume too many calories.

you bet wrong. sorry, you lose. there is no doubt that exercise has many benefits but exercise without a significant dietary change is rarely going to produce any decent results on significant weight loss.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/phys-ed-why-doesnt-exercise-lead-to-weight-loss/

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html

That's your problem. You don't recognize the incredible difference between being 10 or 20 pounds overweight and being obese. And you clearly don't recognize the lifestyle that facilitates such a difference.

I don't know why that is "my problem"?

Being at a less than optimal body weight is unhealthy, whether it's 20 lbs or 50 lbs. Of course the more overweight you are, the worse it is, but still, you're fat either way. Of course lifestyle facilitates being fat, but I don't think I was disagreeing with you on that?

Buahahahaha! Yes, continue to compare their lifestyle to the average American. No, please. Continue.


I don't think I was but some of those cultures were actually very physically inactive and consumed a high number of calories only in the form of meat and dairy and did not display any of the diseases we have grown accustomed to, that was my point.

if the book has an overriding message i'm inclined to take it with a grain of salt, but i've been strained for reading recs as of late
so i might take you up on that.

i agree that market forces dominate our diet in a perverted way....i just have trouble trusting those who think they have the "answer" to solve it..........because as i've already said nutritional science isn't an exact science.

It does not have any "you should do this" type of message. It is completely just the facts. It discusses probably hundreds of different studies which have been performed and goes into the findings of them. There is no "see? you need to eat this way!" type of prose whatsoever. I agree, nutritional science isn't an exact science and we still have *a lot* to learn.

[bung]

A lot of fucking bullshit

From your article:

“The message of our work is really simple,” although not agreeable to hear, Melanson said. “It all comes down to energy balance,” or, as you might have guessed, calories in and calories out.

Great fucking research tactics to support your position. I applaud you for doing the exact research that supports exactly what I've been telling you.

[.invisible ink.]

From your article:

“The message of our work is really simple,” although not agreeable to hear, Melanson said. “It all comes down to energy balance,” or, as you might have guessed, calories in and calories out.

Great fucking research tactics to support your position. I applaud you for doing the exact research that supports exactly what I've been telling you.

blah. whatever. i have the flu, i'm not really in the mood to fight with you or to defend the book that i read anymore. i still stand by the fact that it's worth reading, if only to see what other opinions are out there or you can just continue to act like you know everything and nothing else is worth educating yourself about. it's cool by me either way.

[.invisible ink.]

For anyone who's willing to listen to the author of the book explain his own theories rather than have me try and explain them, here's a great lecture i just came across which you can watch/listen to while doing other things.

http://videomedia2.swedish.org/mediasite/SilverlightPlayer/Default.aspx?peid=cd8c7aa15bc94a048 6f4ee9b66ef8f8f

[zion the lion]

get obese on a 500-calorie diet. i dare you.

I went to the video store and they were selling those big jumbo pickles, you realize those are 0 calories right...The salt from that will make you retain water...and there's not only calories that you have to look out for, there's sugar, so in the long run you can probably end up not in great shape from that kind of shit.

[Scrandon]

I went to the video store and they were selling those big jumbo pickles, you realize those are 0 calories right...The salt from that will make you retain water...and there's not only calories that you have to look out for, there's sugar, so in the long run you can probably end up not in great shape from that kind of shit.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/10/12/128998520989410639.jpg

[zion the lion]

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/10/12/128998520989410639.jpg

Linking me to the google images homepage is nice...thanks

[Scrandon]

Linking me to the google images homepage is nice...thanks

Fixed just for you.

[zion the lion]

Fixed just for you.

I like his badge picture. Although I'm not sure what point youre trying to prove.

[Scrandon]

I like his badge picture. Although I'm not sure what point youre trying to prove.

Point is you have no idea what you're talking about.

[bung]

I went to the video store and they were selling those big jumbo pickles, you realize those are 0 calories right...The salt from that will make you retain water...and there's not only calories that you have to look out for, there's sugar, so in the long run you can probably end up not in great shape from that kind of shit.

a.) Whatever "big jumbo pickles" are, they do not contain 0 calories.
b.) Sugar is a source of calories
c.) What exactly are you trying to say?