Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

asimo77 wrote:I say skip taxing specific drinks and food and just have a fat tax. The more overweight you are the more you're taxed. People lose weight and America gets to profit off of all the obesity. Everyone's happy...except the fatties.

I'd love for airports and bus companies to have an example seat next to the ticket desk with a sign saying 'you must be this thin to ride' and anyone who takes up more than one seat pays for more than one seat. Really takes the wee on planes where they charge excess for luggage but don't charge someone excess gut fees when they are about twice the weight of a normal person...

SilverMK2 wrote:

asimo77 wrote:I say skip taxing specific drinks and food and just have a fat tax. The more overweight you are the more you're taxed. People lose weight and America gets to profit off of all the obesity. Everyone's happy...except the fatties.

I'd love for airports and bus companies to have an example seat next to the ticket desk with a sign saying 'you must be this thin to ride' and anyone who takes up more than one seat pays for more than one seat. Really takes the wee on planes where they charge excess for luggage but don't charge someone excess gut fees when they are about twice the weight of a normal person...

Some airlines already do charge obese people for more than one seat.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:Your liver will be healthier, but not much else will be. Have fun with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Get those any alcohol consumption on that level.

Or any calorie consumption for that matter, not considering exercise.

You're making a flawed argument here.

1) Everyone has access to soda in large quantities. Drinking it excessively or constantly throughout the day does not impede your ability to function such as consuming large quantities of alcohol would. There is undoubtedly a higher percentage of people consuming 72 ounces of soda a day then people consuming a similar amount of alcohol.

2) Again, the 'caloric consumption' claim is inherently flawed. If this was true their would have been a higher number of obese people as soon as a middle class developed, but the rise of obesity did not occur on a widespread scale until the spread of mass produced sodas, high fructose corn syrup, and processed sugary goods. Eating sufficient calories to cause obesity with just red meat, poultry, fruits and vegetables is nearly impossible. Even adding whole grains into the max wouldn't do much and certainly wouldn't lead to someone being 100lbs overweight.

Lastly, high fructose corn syrup is the primary cause of the recent rise in obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Eating a diet free of that will make it nigh impossible to replicate the same the health problems. I'm going to simply assume your arguing for the sake of arguing.

Amaya wrote:

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:Your liver will be healthier, but not much else will be. Have fun with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Get those any alcohol consumption on that level.

Or any calorie consumption for that matter, not considering exercise.

You're making a flawed argument here.

1) Everyone has access to soda in large quantities. Drinking it excessively or constantly throughout the day does not impede your ability to function such as consuming large quantities of alcohol would. There is undoubtedly a higher percentage of people consuming 72 ounces of soda a day then people consuming a similar amount of alcohol.

2) Again, the 'caloric consumption' claim is inherently flawed. If this was true their would have been a higher number of obese people as soon as a middle class developed, but the rise of obesity did not occur on a widespread scale until the spread of mass produced sodas, high fructose corn syrup, and processed sugary goods. Eating sufficient calories to cause obesity with just red meat, poultry, fruits and vegetables is nearly impossible. Even adding whole grains into the max wouldn't do much and certainly wouldn't lead to someone being 100lbs overweight.

Lastly, high fructose corn syrup is the primary cause of the recent rise in obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Eating a diet free of that will make it nigh impossible to replicate the same the health problems. I'm going to simply assume your arguing for the sake of arguing.

I think you're missing dramatic social changes that occurred in the 20th century away from agrarian pedestrian societies towards office work and cars. The modern middle class gets dramatically less exercise then it did in the 19th century. Modern sugar consumption is certainly not innocent of having an exacerbating effect, but we've moved to a society where exercise is a luxury good. That will logically create an obese population. Modern wheat product consumption and the rise of high caloric foods with little nutritional value (as well as dramatically increased sodium intake) are every bit as guilty.

Taxed? Yes, soda should be taxed at the ordinary sales tax rate.

Amaya wrote:Lastly, high fructose corn syrup is the primary cause of the recent rise in obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Eating a diet free of that will make it nigh impossible to replicate the same the health problems. I'm going to simply assume your arguing for the sake of arguing.

Only if you don't consume the same amount of sugar. Because HFCS is basically sugar.

Of course, if you make an effort to avoid HFCS, you're going to consume less sugar. Because manufacturers add HFCS, but manufacturers who avoid HFCS don't use sugar instead.

biccat wrote:Taxed? Yes, soda should be taxed at the ordinary sales tax rate.

Amaya wrote:Lastly, high fructose corn syrup is the primary cause of the recent rise in obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Eating a diet free of that will make it nigh impossible to replicate the same the health problems. I'm going to simply assume your arguing for the sake of arguing.

Only if you don't consume the same amount of sugar. Because HFCS is basically sugar.

Of course, if you make an effort to avoid HFCS, you're going to consume less sugar. Because manufacturers add HFCS, but manufacturers who avoid HFCS don't use sugar instead.

HFCS is usually used in about a 3x quantity to sugar when it's used as a stand in. It's not as flavorful and is dramatically cheaper, so low cost foods will just use a lot of it to get the same effect. It's nutritional value is still similar though, so a product using HFCS has essentially three times the "sugar".

ShumaGorath wrote:HFCS is usually used in about a 3x quantity to sugar when it's used as a stand in. It's not as flavorful and is dramatically cheaper, so low cost foods will just use a lot of it to get the same effect.

Cheaper: yes. Not only yes, but hell yes. Not as flavorful? Not really. Unless you're counting the water content (20-30%?) as part of the "quantity."

Plus, it depends on what type of HFCS you're using. Some are sweeter than others.

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:HFCS is usually used in about a 3x quantity to sugar when it's used as a stand in. It's not as flavorful and is dramatically cheaper, so low cost foods will just use a lot of it to get the same effect.

Cheaper: yes. Not only yes, but hell yes. Not as flavorful? Not really. Unless you're counting the water content (20-30%?) as part of the "quantity."

Plus, it depends on what type of HFCS you're using. Some are sweeter than others.

The ones in soda specifically are comparable, so I'll accede this one since we're talking about sodas. HFCS 42 is less sweet and used in greater quantities in other sugary applications though, which is probably what I had been remembering. It's also likely that the lowered cost encourages them to use more since "sweeter is better" in many applications.

The vagueries of quantities in food is kind of an aside to the actual issue, which is the emphasis now given to the dominance of sweeteners in foods. Sugar used to be expensive, HFCS turned it into a cheap good and it's not something humans are designed to consume in the ways that they're consuming it. Every part of modern society seems designed to produce fat people, from the way that we live to the way that we work to what we eat and where we get our food from.

I live in Maryland, where there is no tax on grocery store food, excepting bottled drinks including juice, soda and bottled water. (And pet food...)

I can assure you, it's not doing anything to lessen soda intake.

streamdragon wrote:I can assure you, it's not doing anything to lessen soda intake.

Oh, you want to tax it to lessen soda intake? No thanks.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Amaya wrote:

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:Your liver will be healthier, but not much else will be. Have fun with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Get those any alcohol consumption on that level.

Or any calorie consumption for that matter, not considering exercise.

You're making a flawed argument here.

1) Everyone has access to soda in large quantities. Drinking it excessively or constantly throughout the day does not impede your ability to function such as consuming large quantities of alcohol would. There is undoubtedly a higher percentage of people consuming 72 ounces of soda a day then people consuming a similar amount of alcohol.

2) Again, the 'caloric consumption' claim is inherently flawed. If this was true their would have been a higher number of obese people as soon as a middle class developed, but the rise of obesity did not occur on a widespread scale until the spread of mass produced sodas, high fructose corn syrup, and processed sugary goods. Eating sufficient calories to cause obesity with just red meat, poultry, fruits and vegetables is nearly impossible. Even adding whole grains into the max wouldn't do much and certainly wouldn't lead to someone being 100lbs overweight.

Lastly, high fructose corn syrup is the primary cause of the recent rise in obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Eating a diet free of that will make it nigh impossible to replicate the same the health problems. I'm going to simply assume your arguing for the sake of arguing.

I think you're missing dramatic social changes that occurred in the 20th century away from agrarian pedestrian societies towards office work and cars. The modern middle class gets dramatically less exercise then it did in the 19th century. Modern sugar consumption is certainly not innocent of having an exacerbating effect, but we've moved to a society where exercise is a luxury good. That will logically create an obese population. Modern wheat product consumption and the rise of high caloric foods with little nutritional value (as well as dramatically increased sodium intake) are every bit as guilty.

Of course lack of exercise is a contributing factor, but it's not as significant as you make it out to be.

Simply consuming whole wheat in moderation is not a problem for most people and might contribute to a small amount of weight gain. White flour is significantly worse and basically on par with soda in terms of nutritional value.

What high caloric foods are you referring to other than products with excessive amounts of sugar and HFCS?

The US should just do it, Soft drinks along with virtually all sweets, Crips, snacks, nuts etc have been taxed in the UK for ages.

The concerns about sales falling are likely not to be as bad as they are predicting.

Of course lack of exercise is a contributing factor, but it's not as significant as you make it out to be.

Yes. Yes it really is.

Simply consuming whole wheat in moderation is not a problem for most people and might contribute to a small amount of weight gain.

Stop using the word moderation, it's meaningless. The consumption of soda "In moderation" is harmless as well.

White flour is significantly worse and basically on par with soda in terms of nutritional value.

It's also derived from wheat and is the most common kind of flour.

What high caloric foods are you referring to other than products with excessive amounts of sugar and HFCS?

I don't feel the need to separate them since it's pointless to do so. Sugars are an important part of the human diet, what is problematic is scale and lifestyle, not targeted specific chemicals.

I think soda does, At my local 7/11 its cost two bucks, if they bumped that up to 3 i would only buy one a week.
Im trying to ween myself off soda now. I no longer drink free soda at work(Which BTW, is a bad idea) i only drink power ade or water at work.
In the morning i have an arizona tea(which may be worse, not sure)
i try to only have one soda a day. IT gets hard when they are so cheap and readily avaiable.

Melissia wrote:

Natural and Artificial, best of both worlds. Going to buy me a can off ebay!

biccat wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I can assure you, it's not doing anything to lessen soda intake.

Oh, you want to tax it to lessen soda intake? No thanks.

I have no idea if that was the OPs intention or not. I apologize for being unclear, but I was adding that as a correlary to the "omg soda is so bad for you" secondary topic that has sprung up.

And how exactly would you define moderate soda consumption?

You do not have to exercise a single day of your life in order to maintain a healthy body weight. In this instance, I am defining exercise as any physical activity performed during your free time for the purpose of improving your level of fitness not physical activity that you may perform on your job.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:I think soda does, At my local 7/11 its cost two bucks, if they bumped that up to 3 i would only buy one a week.
Im trying to ween myself off soda now. I no longer drink free soda at work(Which BTW, is a bad idea) i only drink power ade or water at work.
In the morning i have an arizona tea(which may be worse, not sure)
i try to only have one soda a day. IT gets hard when they are so cheap and readily avaiable.

Powerade and similar products are bad for you as well unless you're an athlete in a cardio heavy sport.

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I can assure you, it's not doing anything to lessen soda intake.

Oh, you want to tax it to lessen soda intake? No thanks.

I have no idea if that was the OPs intention or not. I apologize for being unclear, but I was adding that as a correlary to the "omg soda is so bad for you" secondary topic that has sprung up.

Generally when you make something more expensive (e.g. by taxing it) then consumption of that product is reduced. Even if it's only marginal.

Pfft, Just water during work then i suppose.

You do not have to exercise a single day of your life in order to maintain a healthy body weight. In this instance, I am defining exercise as any physical activity performed during your free time for the purpose of improving your level of fitness not physical activity that you may perform on your job.

Which you're wrong about. An office worker who drives to work and sits at a computer all day has a low floor for caloric intake. The body naturally takes the opportunity to process and store fats by maintaining "normalcy" in consumption because in nature stored fats are a defense mechanism against scarcity. Thus the modern american lifestyle which is very low energy thanks to ease of transport and sedentary working conditions develops fat people by the bodies own designs.

Well it's obvious that there is no reason even attempting to discuss this with you Shuma since you're ignorant on the subject.

Amaya wrote:Well it's obvious that there is no reason even attempting to discuss this with you Shuma since you're ignorant on the subject.

You've managed to repeat the same two lines in every post while dismissing everyone else. You haven't even been backing up your claims with facts or logic. You're not exactly a wonderful debater here.

Saying something is true and that other people are "wrong" doesn't make you right or convincing. Especially when you refuse to interface with the nuances of other peoples opinions.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Amaya wrote:Well it's obvious that there is no reason even attempting to discuss this with you Shuma since you're ignorant on the subject.

You've managed to repeat the same two lines in every post while dismissing everyone else. You haven't even been backing up your claims with facts or logic. You're not exactly a wonderful debater here.

Saying something is true and that other people are "wrong" doesn't make you right or convincing. Especially when you refuse to interface with the nuances of other peoples opinions.

There's no point in arguing with you. You literally have no idea what you're talking about and actually think that you do. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The fact that you even attempt to argue that exercise is necessary to maintain a healthy body weight is hilarious.

Do you not understand how weight loss or maintenance works?

I dropped from 240 to 185 in a little over 3 months doing no more exercise than biking 15-20 miles a week and doing dips and pull ups every other day. That's a really minimal amount of exercise and the only reason I even did that much was to avoid losing excess muscle mass.

Dropping that much that fast requires close to a 2000 calorie a day deficit. Even with that moderate exercise there is no way my peak BMR was over 3000 at any point and yet I still dropped that weight eating 2000~ calories a day and half pound fast food cheeseburgers 4-5 times a week.

I'm just saddened that the majority of folks here seem to think it is okay and good for the Gov't to interfere/control your personal lives to the extent you do and to advocate for MORE gov't control.

I seriously wonder how the concept of personal responsibility has deteriorated to the extent it has.

I bet if you took awaythe idea of 'health care as a right' and made people pay for the consequences of their decisions you could also influence their behavior. I suspect that idea will make some of you go nuts.

There's no point in arguing with you. You literally have no idea what you're talking about and actually think that you do. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The fact that you even attempt to argue that exercise is necessary to maintain a healthy body weight is hilarious.

There is no such thing as a "healthy body weight". BMI is a derivative that must be taken with other factors when determining bodily health. It's a red herring and one that you're unable to stop flying around on. Exercise is important for developing musculature, controlling cholesterol, and developing a functional and healthy cardiovascular system. It's important in thousands of other ways as well, but I'm not going to pay for your college. Being thin isn't being healthy. Being healthy is being healthy.

Do you not understand how weight loss or maintenance works?

I dropped from 240 to 185 in a little over 3 months doing no more exercise than biking 15-20 miles a week and doing dips and pull ups every other day. That's a really minimal amount of exercise and the only reason I even did that much was to avoid losing excess muscle mass.

How the hell is doing daily exercise "minimal"? Doing none and relying on your daily transport routine between your couch and fridge would be "minimal". I'm glad you had a nice success story, but you honestly seem to lack any actual perspective or knowledge here. You're exercising more than the majority of Americans. That means it's not "minimal".

Dropping that much that fast requires close to a 2000 calorie a day deficit. Even with that moderate exercise there is no way my peak BMR was over 3000 at any point and yet I still dropped that weight eating 2000~ calories a day and half pound fast food cheeseburgers 4-5 times a week.

Uhuh. Clearly doing repetitious calorie burning exercises as a luxury outside of you work had nothing to do with it. Sure. Are you reading what you're posting?

If you think biking 20 miles a week at most and doing 50~ or so dips and chin ups 3 times a week is anything more than minimal...hmm...I don't know what to say...I consider that amount to be so minimal its laughable...the fact you actually think that is strenuous is just hilarious to me.

The point being is that I was doing nowhere near enough exercise to lose that much weight that quickly. The fact you haven't figured out how I did it just further validates my belief you have no bloody clue what you're talking about.

CptJake wrote:I'm just saddened that the majority of folks here seem to think it is okay and good for the Gov't to interfere/control your personal lives to the extent you do and to advocate for MORE gov't control.

I seriously wonder how the concept of personal responsibility has deteriorated to the extent it has.

I bet if you took awaythe idea of 'health care as a right' and made people pay for the consequences of their decisions you could also influence their behavior. I suspect that idea will make some of you go nuts.

there is no personal responsibility any more, if you can tell someone else what to do, all the while shouting "please think of the children!!!"

I believe there are too many sugars and too much salt in processed US food. I agree 100%. I also think its personal responsbility and capitalism to adjust. Make your own food, and focus on healthier options in the market. I'm not self righteous. Since mom died I've let myself go and become a physical wreck and its really really hard to get it back. but I blame no else but me (and maybe demon rum for being so awesome).

Wife " Put your hands in the air and step away from the pizza!"
Frazzled, pulls a Rodney, grabs a slice, shoving it halfway into his mouth and runs away chewing
NOM NOM NOM!!!

If you think biking 20 miles a week at most and doing 50~ or so dips and chin ups 3 times a week is anything more than minimal...hmm...I don't know what to say...I consider that amount to be so minimal its laughable...the fact you actually think that is strenuous is just hilarious to me.

Per week I run six miles, do 90 bench presses, 90 military, 90 standing triceps, ~300 weighted situps, and assorted other exercises. I don't consider what you were doing strenuous. At all. But I don't consider it minimal. The word minimal has an actual meaning. What you are doing isn't minimal and it's above curve for America.

The point being is that I was doing nowhere near enough exercise to lose that much weight that quickly.

What was your caloric burn per week? What was your dietary intake? Did you consume less calories? You're describing magic weightloss. Be accurate and informative from now on please. Right now you're being contradictory and displaying ignorance about human biology and physiology.

Amaya wrote:If you think biking 20 miles a week at most and doing 50~ or so dips and chin ups 3 times a week is anything more than minimal...hmm...I don't know what to say...I consider that amount to be so minimal its laughable...the fact you actually think that is strenuous is just hilarious to me.

The point being is that I was doing nowhere near enough exercise to lose that much weight that quickly. The fact you haven't figured out how I did it just further validates my belief you have no bloody clue what you're talking about.

Get older kid and you'll change your tune on whats minimal. When i was young I thought like that, then life wore my joints to gak and I ended up sitting on may ass at work all day. When walking up the stairs is a minor act of will your views on what people can do change.

I'll give you a hint, it's not all about calories.

Really, I can't believe the so called 'nutritional expert' is having such a hard time with this. It's not hard Shuma...well if you know what you're talking about.

Edit: Oh, and why the hell are you doing 90 bench presses a week?