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.

ShumaGorath 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.

Per week I run six miles, do 90 bench presses, 90 military, 90 standing triceps, ~300 weighted situps, and assorted other exercises.

On topic, I'm fine with a junk food tax. Britain has one, so why not us? We refuse to tax the rich, so the fat seems like a good enough target.

Amaya wrote:
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.

Everyone has access to alcohol in large quantities too, its just a matter of certain hurdles. Not unlike soda considering that people under, say, 16 are generally dependent on their parents for everything.

Amaya wrote:
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.

Obesity isn't all that difficult to cause man. All you need to do is consumer more calories than you expend on a daily basis for a long period of time. Say, over the course of a career and general lifestyle that is highly sedentary.

Soda, and sugary drinks in general, were around, and plentiful, long before obesity was became prevalent. Hell, there was a time when its was safer to drink alcoholic beverages, obviously calorie intense, than water. The major issues are the conversion to a white collar work force, and the elevation of essentially everyone to the standards of the middle class.

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.

No, I'm arguing because I see many evidence related problems with your argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

No, but broadly it is.

I don't drink soda, so this wouldn't really affect me. I'm all for punishing fatties, though! Tax 'em till they shrink!

Chowderhead wrote:On topic, I'm fine with a junk food tax. Britain has one, so why not us? We refuse to tax the rich, so the fat seems like a good enough target.

We're not taxing the rich, so we should tax the poor?

We'll make a Republican out of you yet!

Amaya wrote: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?

Because I want to be able to bench the biggest weights.

biccat wrote:

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.

Perhaps so, although there are certain things that obviously seem to buck this trend. Cigarettes, for example, or alcohol. I know my purchasing of bottled water did not decrease at all when the tax was instituted, although I'm obviously only one person so my anecdotal doesn't necessarily speak to the overall trend. I also still see an absolute ton of soda cans and bottles in the recycle containers at the county dump. (again, anecdotal blah de blah de blah). To be truthful, despite a short lived campaign by various vendors to combat the tax's implementation, I doubt most people in MD even realize they're getting taxed on bottled drinks now.

Obesity isn't all that difficult to cause man. All you need to do is consumer more calories than you expend on a daily basis for a long period of time. Say, over the course of a career and general lifestyle that is highly sedentary.

Soda, and sugary drinks in general, were around, and plentiful, long before obesity was became prevalent. Hell, there was a time when its was safer to drink alcoholic beverages, obviously calorie intense, than water. The major issues are the conversion to a white collar work force, and the elevation of essentially everyone to the standards of the middle class.

Where are you getting this from? Do you honestly believe it is anywhere near as easy to get heavy without eating excessive amounts of sugar/HFCS than it is to do without consuming those 'nutrients'?

Multiple studies have been done linking excess consumption of sugar and HFCS (especially HFCS) to increased risk for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.


It is not and has never been 'broadly' about calories. Proper consumption of macronutrients is more important.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Amaya wrote: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?

Because I want to be able to bench the biggest weights.

You're doing it so very, very wrong.

You're doing it so very, very wrong.

I am close to benching the biggest weights. A few months ago I was not close to benching the biggest weights. To closer follow your example I will try to consume more cheeseburgers and be more incredulous while doing occasional pullups.

Amaya wrote:
Where are you getting this from? Do you honestly believe it is anywhere near as easy to get heavy without eating excessive amounts of sugar/HFCS than it is to do without consuming those 'nutrients'?

Multiple studies have been done linking excess consumption of sugar and HFCS (especially HFCS) to increased risk for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Ok? We're not talking about diabetes, or cardiovascular health, we're talking about obesity.

Amaya wrote:
It is not and has never been 'broadly' about calories. Proper consumption of macronutrients is more important.

Not relative to obesity. General health, sure, but not obesity.

ShumaGorath wrote:

You're doing it so very, very wrong.

I am close to benching the biggest weights. A few months ago I was not close to benching the biggest weights.

Man, you give up quick. It's okay, most people know nothing about nutrition. I'm sure you'd be a quick study if you actually researched it instead of buying into media lies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Where are you getting this from? Do you honestly believe it is anywhere near as easy to get heavy without eating excessive amounts of sugar/HFCS than it is to do without consuming those 'nutrients'?

Multiple studies have been done linking excess consumption of sugar and HFCS (especially HFCS) to increased risk for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Ok? We're not talking about diabetes, or cardiovascular health, we're talking about obesity.

Amaya wrote:
It is not and has never been 'broadly' about calories. Proper consumption of macronutrients is more important.

Not relative to obesity. General health, sure, but not obesity.

Funny, I could've sworn that one of the main reasons I think soda should be taxed is because it causes health problems other than obesity.

And seriously, try to get fat eating no carbs. Not frigging possible unless you eat like a champ.

Amaya wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

You're doing it so very, very wrong.

I am close to benching the biggest weights. A few months ago I was not close to benching the biggest weights.

Man, you give up quick. It's okay, most people know nothing about nutrition. I'm sure you'd be a quick study if you actually researched it instead of buying into media lies.

I don't understand how that was even a reference to my post. How did I give up quick? You're posts aren't making a lot of sense anymore.

You have said absolutely nothing that implies you have researched nutritional health or human physiology. You've actually said an awful lot that's head scratching or flat out wrong. Again, it's nice that you lost some weight, but you sound like you managed to Mister Magoo your way into it. You don't know human habitual trends or work trends in the last century, you don't know the histories of either sugar intake or HFCS in America, and you apparently haven't ever looked at historical obesity rates or the dates attached to those graphs. Most of what you say doesn't line up with reality and you're refusing to acknowledge very important parts of this issue.

Funny, I could've sworn that one of the main reasons I think soda should be taxed is because it causes health problems other than obesity.

And seriously, try to get fat eating no carbs. Not frigging possible unless you eat like a champ.

Carbs are in more than soda. It must be nice to argue on shifting sands.

I'm all for a large soda tax, we've tried to leave people to their own devices, and the added costs to the health care system are MASSIVE. So I say we tax foods, drinks, drugs that cause such health problems and feed it into the health care budget, if they want to eat poorly, they have to pay enough to cover all that diabetes medication they'll need.

Amaya wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It's politically unfeasible to sin-tax foods. Most citizens don't consider food to be a drug and vice taxes for consumables are usually drugs only.

Wasn't the same argument made against tobacco? I think soda isn't too far away from being demonized to the point tobacco is. Alcohol is taxed and it a consumable, in fact it was a staple of the human diet for centuries.

LordofHats wrote:Yes. New taxes always go over so well with the general population.

And?

Melissia wrote:But not fruit sodas.

Huh?

Vaerros wrote:Individuals already have the power to simply *not* consume soda...

Strong first post. Same case with tobacco and alcohol and yet they are taxed. Taxes on tobacco products are obscenely high.

Buy smokes in Michigan. A pack of Camels is something like $7 bucks a pack.But I dont smoke so it doesnt bother me. I dont drink soda (We call it pop here in Michigan) either, so they can tax the hell out of that as well

I'm not going to spell it out for you. You're the alleged expert, you should know the quickest way to lose weight.

But apparently you don't.

Amaya wrote:I'm not going to spell it out for you. You're the alleged expert, you should know the quickest way to lose weight.

But apparently you don't.

What is the quickest way? All you've said is "Don't drink soda". Please, mister god like Adonis of the perfect body with perfect knowledge of corn syrup and the human chakras. Whats the big secret?

Chowderhead wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Per week I run six miles, do 90 bench presses, 90 military, 90 standing triceps, ~300 weighted situps, and assorted other exercises.

....look-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here........

Shuma was responding to someone insinuating that he couldn't handle a certain level of exercise because Shuma knew most americans don't participate in exercise to that degree. What's wrong with that?

Well since you asked so nicely, I guess I'll oblige.

Dogma was partially correct. Calories are somewhat important, but cutting them alone is not a guarantee of weight loss. It actually leads to yo-yo losses and gains since people are starving themselves and not getting the nutrients they need.

1) Cut down to under 100g of carbs a day. Less if you can handle it and want to speed up the process. I went down to <50g. Don't eat any in the evening. You can reintroduce them after losing the weight, but I would stay under 300g a day tops unless you're extremely active or are trying to increase your mass.

2) Eat multiple, small meals spaced out evenly through the day. Anywhere from 5-8 works depending on your schedule. This speeds up your metabolism without exercising! I know it's fething complicated right.

3) Drink at least a gallon of water a day. Preferably 2.

4) Maintain an overall calorie deficit. 100-250 is fine, it doesn't need to be a huge deficit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scrabb wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Per week I run six miles, do 90 bench presses, 90 military, 90 standing triceps, ~300 weighted situps, and assorted other exercises.

....look-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here........

Shuma was responding to someone insinuating that he couldn't handle a certain level of exercise because Shuma knew most americans don't participate in exercise to that degree. What's wrong with that?

How exactly did I insinuate that? Do people really think that biking 2-3 miles a day is remotely difficult?

I can see why you'd lose weight drinking 2 gallons of water a day. You'd spent so much time pissing you wouldn't have any time eat.

Exalted Pariah wrote:I'm all for a large soda tax, we've tried to leave people to their own devices, and the added costs to the health care system are MASSIVE. So I say we tax foods, drinks, drugs that cause such health problems and feed it into the health care budget, if they want to eat poorly, they have to pay enough to cover all that diabetes medication they'll need.

If you wacked people when they reached 32 you'd save a buttload on health care costs.

Frazzled wrote:

Exalted Pariah wrote:I'm all for a large soda tax, we've tried to leave people to their own devices, and the added costs to the health care system are MASSIVE. So I say we tax foods, drinks, drugs that cause such health problems and feed it into the health care budget, if they want to eat poorly, they have to pay enough to cover all that diabetes medication they'll need.

If you wacked people when they reached 32 you'd save a buttload on health care costs.

That's clearly not the same thing...

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Exalted Pariah wrote:I'm all for a large soda tax, we've tried to leave people to their own devices, and the added costs to the health care system are MASSIVE. So I say we tax foods, drinks, drugs that cause such health problems and feed it into the health care budget, if they want to eat poorly, they have to pay enough to cover all that diabetes medication they'll need.

If you wacked people when they reached 32 you'd save a buttload on health care costs.

That's clearly not the same thing...

Yet.

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Exalted Pariah wrote:I'm all for a large soda tax, we've tried to leave people to their own devices, and the added costs to the health care system are MASSIVE. So I say we tax foods, drinks, drugs that cause such health problems and feed it into the health care budget, if they want to eat poorly, they have to pay enough to cover all that diabetes medication they'll need.

If you wacked people when they reached 32 you'd save a buttload on health care costs.

That's clearly not the same thing...

Sure it is. If health care costs are the only factor, then this would cut down gazillions.

Amaya wrote:
Dogma was partially correct. Calories are somewhat important, but cutting them alone is not a guarantee of weight loss.

Yeah, it is. This isn't a difficult concept, its not the most efficient way of losing weight, or even the most healthy, but it will work every single time.

How exactly did I insinuate that? Do people really think that biking 2-3 miles a day is remotely difficult?

How did you fundamentally misread both his and my post that badly. When did he say difficult? When did he imply it was difficult? When did I? We didn't. That's when.

Amaya wrote:
Funny, I could've sworn that one of the main reasons I think soda should be taxed is because it causes health problems other than obesity.

And yet we've been talking about obesity.

Amaya wrote:
And seriously, try to get fat eating no carbs. Not frigging possible unless you eat like a champ.

You have to do the same thing with carbs.

This thread would hurt my soul if I had one...

KingCracker wrote:I dont drink soda (We call it pop here in Michigan) either, so they can tax the hell out of that as well

They already do. But it's not a soda tax,it's a can tax. Sure, it's refundable and not really that much, but it's a tax.

Exalted Pariah wrote:and feed it into the health care budget, if they want to eat poorly, they have to pay enough to cover all that diabetes medication they'll need.

And that's one reason why I don't like socialized medicine.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Dogma was partially correct. Calories are somewhat important, but cutting them alone is not a guarantee of weight loss.

Yeah, it is. This isn't a difficult concept, its not the most efficient way of losing weight, or even the most healthy, but it will work every single time.

You are so wrong it's not even funny.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Funny, I could've sworn that one of the main reasons I think soda should be taxed is because it causes health problems other than obesity.

And yet we've been talking about obesity.

Amaya wrote:
And seriously, try to get fat eating no carbs. Not frigging possible unless you eat like a champ.

You have to do the same thing with carbs.

No, you've been talking about obesity and ignoring other health concerns. Are you honestly saying eating 2000 calories of chicken is the same as 2000 calories of soda or ice cream?

And that's one reason why I don't like socialized medicine.

Interestingly, the only countries on earth with diabetes epidemics (The US, China) don't have socialized healthcare.

Amaya wrote:
You are so wrong it's not even funny.

You sound like every single power lifter I've ever known in that you conflate weight loss with fat loss, they aren't the same.

There's a reason we used to screen out your kind when hiring trainers.

Amaya wrote:
No, you've been talking about obesity and ignoring other health concerns. Are you honestly saying eating 2000 calories of chicken is the same as 2000 calories of soda or ice cream?

No, but I'll say now that both are terrible for you.