Author Topic: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?  (Read 25070 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline m52nickerson

  • Polish Viking
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
  • Gender: Male
  • Winning by flying omoplata!
Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
« Reply #90 on: February 03, 2012, 04:33:23 pm »
Vene, you can come off as arrogant sometimes.  Just running your posts by a mod that you live with or another mod that often jumps to insulting people as quickly does not make it right.  You are also not the only one on this board that has a degree in biology.

Now to the topic....

I don't want the government regulating or taxing sugar because eating to much of it can cause problems.  Pull subsidies from corn or the like, fine.  Subsidize healthier foods, fine.  If people want to eat nothing but Twinkies all day and get obese, that’s their call.  I don't want to pay more when I feel like eating a rutting ice cream cone.

In the end there is at least some to be said about personal responsibility.
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ~Macbeth

Offline Cataclysm

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2458
Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
« Reply #91 on: February 03, 2012, 04:38:44 pm »
*ahem*  Lexi, that's the thing.  Sleepy wasn't referring to just this thread.  Vene has a history of doing this across multiple threads.  Now, that's not saying he isn't knowledgeable, or that he isn't educated; he is.  Very much so, and I respect that knowledge and education, but, using that as an excuse to belittle people is, quite frankly, crossing the line from simple "knowing what I'm saying" to "knowing what I'm saying, and you, therefore, do not."
I'd be more sympathetic if people here didn't act like they knew what they were saying when they were saying something very much wrong.

Cock gets a friend.


I don't want the government regulating or taxing sugar because eating to much of it can cause problems.  Pull subsidies from corn or the like, fine.  Subsidize healthier foods, fine.  If people want to eat nothing but Twinkies all day and get obese, that’s their call.  I don't want to pay more when I feel like eating a rutting ice cream cone.

In the end there is at least some to be said about personal responsibility.


I'm not sure we reached the point yet.

Plus if you eat nothing but twinkies for a while (or something similar) the effects will be long lasting.



Also, think of the children!!!
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 04:40:23 pm by Lexikon »
I'd be more sympathetic if people here didn't act like they knew what they were saying when they were saying something very much wrong.

Quote
Commenter Brendan Rizzo is an American (still living there) who really, really hates America. He used to make posts defending his country from anti-American attacks but got fed up with it all.

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
« Reply #92 on: February 03, 2012, 04:40:29 pm »
*ahem*  Lexi, that's the thing.  Sleepy wasn't referring to just this thread.  Vene has a history of doing this across multiple threads.  Now, that's not saying he isn't knowledgeable, or that he isn't educated; he is.  Very much so, and I respect that knowledge and education, but, using that as an excuse to belittle people is, quite frankly, crossing the line from simple "knowing what I'm saying" to "knowing what I'm saying, and you, therefore, do not."
I'd be more sympathetic if people here didn't act like they knew what they were saying when they were saying something very much wrong.

So, essentially, "I'm smarter than you, so I have the right to verbally abuse you."
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet

Offline m52nickerson

  • Polish Viking
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
  • Gender: Male
  • Winning by flying omoplata!
Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
« Reply #93 on: February 03, 2012, 04:46:09 pm »
I'm not sure we reached the point yet.

Plus if you eat nothing but twinkies for a while (or something similar) the effects will be long lasting.

Also, think of the children!!!

I know we have not reached that point yet, but in some ways it feels as if we are headed that way.  I don't even agree with some of the bans on smoking.

I just remembered this....http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html...for whatever it is worth.
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ~Macbeth

Offline Quasirodent

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 333
  • You knew it in your heart all along.
Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
« Reply #94 on: February 03, 2012, 05:13:48 pm »
I do think there should be regulations when it comes to adding sugar to processed foods - specifically hidden sugar.  Those ingredients with the alternative names for multiple forms to make people think there's less of it in there than there is.
And labels that suggest a sugar-laden food is 'healthy' because of lower fat, when the sugar is just as fattening and probably even worse for your body.
How about warning labels on the most unhealthy junk foods?  Just the stuff that has no significant nutritional value otherwise.  There's already labels on cigarettes, so why not on a candy bar?

(addendum) It also occurs to me that there's a degree of indoctrination to support the corn syrup industry in the US.  Sadly, so much money is riding on feeding Americans as much corn as they can handle, that the chances of anything threatening that being successful is pretty low.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 05:20:20 pm by Quasirodent »
Jesus had two dads and he turned out okay.

Offline Mira

  • Literally Worse Than Hitler
  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
  • Cisphobic reverse racist
    • Houserule Gaming
Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
« Reply #95 on: February 03, 2012, 05:19:09 pm »
Since you're taking it far outside of the context of this thread, I feel like all the "Vene's being a dick" shit should have its own thread if the discussion is going to continue.
I’ve grown overfed, unconcerned and comfortably numb
Kept busy indulging in the pleasures of the wealthy
Oh, someone make me afraid of what I’ve become!

Offline CaseAgainstFaith

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
  • Gender: Male
  • Smartass with a Dunce Hat
Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
« Reply #96 on: February 03, 2012, 05:19:09 pm »
I do think there should be regulations when it comes to adding sugar to processed foods - specifically hidden sugar.  Those ingredients with the alternative names for multiple forms to make people think there's less of it in there than there is.
And labels that suggest a sugar-laden food is 'healthy' because of lower fat, when the sugar is just as fattening and probably even worse for your body.
How about warning labels on the most unhealthy junk foods?  Just the stuff that has no significant nutritional value otherwise.  There's already labels on cigarettes, so why not on a candy bar?

Maybe I am naive but I could see Valentines Day and a lot of women in general would be a bit pissy to have a warning label put on their chocolates....but like I said I could be wrong.
Quote
Reasoning with a fundie is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it is victorious - Anonymous
Quote
Let us drink like dwarves; Smoke like wizards and party like hobbits!

Offline GLaDOS

  • Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System
  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
« Reply #97 on: February 03, 2012, 05:22:38 pm »
if you eat nothing but twinkies for a while (or something similar) the effects will be long lasting.
Oh god, not the twinkie defence again...
Space? SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!
How are you holding up? Because I'm a POTATO.
Silence will fall.
For fuck's sake, please keep my fucks given levels balanced.

Offline Quasirodent

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 333
  • You knew it in your heart all along.
Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
« Reply #98 on: February 03, 2012, 05:23:35 pm »
Maybe I am naive but I could see Valentines Day and a lot of women in general would be a bit pissy to have a warning label put on their chocolates....but like I said I could be wrong.

It might add the allure of the forbidden?
But then again, if it's GOOD chocolate, it wouldn't make the list of the most unhealthy sweets.
And as I've always said, Valentines' day is the best holiday to get half-price chocolate the day after, because the product's main target is men who want to get laid - and cheap sugary garbage (like Easter candy) won't cut it.
Jesus had two dads and he turned out okay.

Offline TheL

  • The Cock Teasing Teacher
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2219
  • Gender: Female
  • Fly like cheese sticks.
Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
« Reply #99 on: February 03, 2012, 05:41:39 pm »
I do think there should be regulations when it comes to adding sugar to processed foods - specifically hidden sugar.  Those ingredients with the alternative names for multiple forms to make people think there's less of it in there than there is.
And labels that suggest a sugar-laden food is 'healthy' because of lower fat, when the sugar is just as fattening and probably even worse for your body.
How about warning labels on the most unhealthy junk foods?  Just the stuff that has no significant nutritional value otherwise.  There's already labels on cigarettes, so why not on a candy bar?

(addendum) It also occurs to me that there's a degree of indoctrination to support the corn syrup industry in the US.  Sadly, so much money is riding on feeding Americans as much corn as they can handle, that the chances of anything threatening that being successful is pretty low.

This, exactly.  When the sugars are listed as "sugar," "corn syrup," and "high fructose corn syrup" in the same ingredient list, it gives the impression that two of those things are not even remotely sugar.  Since mothers are most often told to watch out for sugar, particularly, they can be fooled into thinking something loaded with corn syrup is healthier, simply because sugar is not listed as sugar, or appears lower in the ingredients list.

I eat sugar-free stuff mostly (yes, I know, artificial sweeteners are worse), because some of them actually taste like FOOD instead of like sweetener.  You don't realize how horribly over-sweetened 90% of processed food is until you've been on a sugar-free or low-carb diet.  I used to love Little Debbie/Hostess/Entenmann's snacks, and now I feel queasy just looking at them because they're nothing but sugar and grease.  I can no longer stand soda or Southern-style sweet tea, either.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 05:43:48 pm by TheL »
Quote from: ladyrenae
You there. The creepy person who decided I was supporting their position. Stop it.

"Half the reason that I like foreign music is because I can kid myself that "Shake dat ass" is more poetic in Hindi."
--Sanda

Move every 'sig.'  For great justice!

Offline nickiknack

  • I Find Your Lack of Ponies... Disturbing
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 6037
  • Gender: Female
  • HAS A KINK FOR SPACE NAZIS
Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
« Reply #100 on: February 03, 2012, 05:57:33 pm »
I think the best way to go about it, is to go after the corn subsides. That along with decent health education would have the biggest impact.

Offline Oriet

  • Homo sapiens scientia
  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Gender: Female
  • Disabled Vet MtF Polyamorous Atheist Auspie
Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
« Reply #101 on: February 03, 2012, 05:59:43 pm »


Seriously people, what the fuck? Here I expected from the title and OP for there to be reasonable discussion, yet what I have found is most people being moronic; stating ignorance and falsehoods as fact, plugging their ears going "La la la la la! I can't hear you!" to people and sources they disagree with, making gross false equivalences, complete misunderstanding of fairly simple English and simple concepts, and horrendous attempts at comparisons. What the bloody hell, people?

A person stating facts, reminding people of their education to illustrate why they understand the topic, and backing both up with simple arguments and sourced evidence is not a person being arrogant. Telling people who do not have education and are messing even the simplest of concepts such education imparts that they are wrong and why they are wrong, again with simple argumentation and sourced evidence, is not being condescending. Deriding an expert for correcting people who don't even have the most basic level of understanding of the topic they are an expert in is pretty much the definition of moronic, especially when you deride them as much if not more than they have expressed frustration at the ignorant for stating falsehoods as "True Factsâ„¢"; which, by the way, is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.

For those who are talking about rule breaking, let me make something clear. Yes, there is a rule saying people should be civil, however we also have a rule about responding to the arguments made in a thread. Jumping at strawmen and blaming someone else for creating them is not only not responding to the arguments that were made, it's also far from being civil. I would also say citing the rules to a person as a form of "threat" (or what have you) for the display understandable annoyance when there's already 2 mods in the thread and another that posts were run past prior to posting is very questionable itself, especially when it is very easy to PM a mod or direct attention to a possible violation even in the thread itself where it's known mods will see it.


Latest example in this thread:
Quote
but not when some ignorant layperson thinks he knows more than somebody who fucking studies this shit.

QED. You are attacking someone, not their ideas but the person. Including appeal to authority for extra oomph.
I only see attacking the behaviour, and thus the ideas themselves, not the person. He didn't say "you're wrong because you're a doo-doo-head," it was closer to "you're a doo-doo-head and wrong because of this evidence right here *smacks down a source*". Huge fucking difference which is vital to know if something is an ad hominem or not. I also do not see an appeal to authority there beyond "this is what actual authorities have said on the matter and these are the reasons why, so that those who aren't authorities can also understand it". Seriously, it's like saying it's an appeal to authority to rely on a professional basketball coach for what the rules of basketball are instead of a physicist.

Now, if you can otherwise demonstrate how such fallacies apply to his argument then please show me, though I also request that you use proper argumentation to do so because I find it very hard to accept criticism of an argument when said criticism can't even hold up to itself.

Could Vene be nicer in his retorts? Yes, he could, but he starts off that way and resorts to snarking when it has been clearly demonstrated that nicety is wasted and undeserved. I agree that makes it a bit abrasive, but being abrasive is sometimes the only way to get a person to realise what one is actually saying.



Lithp: Semantics are important when they change the very core of an argument; you know, the baseline concept.



And now to add something to the original discussion: I found a study (here) showing that it is actually not the poor who are being hit the hardest with the increase in obesity. I also want to reiterate that not all calories are equal. It was something I grew up with my entire life as a simple fact as my father was insulin dependent diabetic, so I keep being surprised that people don't realise the enormity of difference in the type of calories.

Yes, carbohydrates are technically sugars, but as far as diets (in the technical sense, not just the new-fad-to-lose-weight-fast type) are concerned there is a large difference between carbohydrates and simple sugars. You will not get diabetes from eating lots of pasta (the noodles) or rice, as they are loaded with carbohydrates which take a bit of energy to break down into simple sugars for later use, and also spreads out the intake of the broken down sugars. Straight simple sugars come in the time frame taken to eat them and require no energy to be broken down like carbohydrates do. This is why after eating a candy bar you'll feel the energy quickly, but eating spaghetti will give you good, long lasting energy even if it takes a short while before you feel it kick in.

As Vene already posted a study about, it's not just the amount of calories but the type that's important. 200 calories of sugar is vastly different than 200 calories of protein, especially as that protein is also used to create muscle and other tissue whereas excess sugars are stored as fat. Even if for whatever reason it was to put the same amount of weight on a person it would manifest differently because the calories are not the same.

Oh, and for those who complained about high fructose corn syrup instead of "sugar" sugar: they are the same thing and everyone who's bothered to read even the OP has no reason not to know such as it was directly stated how and why they are essentially the same.
The Rules, get to know them.


Offline Shane for Wax

  • Official Mosin Nagant Fanboy, Crazy, and Lord of Androgynes
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: I am a geek!!
  • Gender: Male
  • Twin to shy, lover of weapons, pagan, wolf-brother
    • Game Podunk
Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
« Reply #102 on: February 03, 2012, 06:44:41 pm »
This has not just happened in this thread. But I acquiesce on this point. I will however attempt to take a look at the actual topic at hand.

-----------------
With that said I really, really do not like the idea of setting age limits for sugar. Nor do I like the fact that the original source for this article requires a subscription or for me to somehow be in a profession that grants me access to it. So I am left with having to see what WSJ (a publication I don't entirely trust to be accurate when it comes to science) has said. Instituting an age limit on this has been done in small areas before. Outright banning High Fructose Corn Syrup has been done before. We have loads of commentary on what happens when you do this. People always find a way. You forbid something for a younger person they will find a way to do it and do it dangerously.

You tell a 16 year old they can't smoke, what do they do? They go and find a way to do it. Tell an 18 year old they can't drink with their college buddies what do they do? The get their 22 year old college mate to buy the beer. They will find a way. They will even do it dangerously. Many kids who have drank before they are legally allowed have fucked up their bodies doing it because they don't know how to be responsible with it.

You tell little 9 year old Timmy at Halloween he can't have candy and you know what he'll do? Cry and shout and stomp his feet then sneak a candy bar from mom's purse.

I am not saying this always happen and that everyone does it. But it happens. In households where sugary treats are banned you have children sneaking to their friend's house for a Three Musketeers.

Let's hop over to zoning restrictions. Sometimes the only time you eat is if you go to that local McDonald's for a 99c burger. Are we going to make it so that food in the store is cheaper and better to ingest? Healthier foods by and large are more expensive. You can see it just by stopping in your local Wal-Mart. Look at the microwaveable meals. Which is cheaper? The one that isn't as healthy as the weight watchers meal next door. People can, if they try, get good food for cheaper but it's harder in the cities. We've been over this before. Multiple people recognized the problem.

Look at the fruits and vegetables. Look at their prices per pound. You can get frozen and canned food for cheaper than that. Fresh fruit and vegetables are by and large better to ingest, yes?

Here in the US our fresh fruits are more expensive than our processed. Yet hop over to Europe and look around you. Cheaper (even with the change in currency) fresh fruit and veg. You have the poorer people barely eating the potatoes and the like but it's also what they can most afford. They are malnourished even with the 'fresh fruit'. It's why famines hurt them the most.

So what to do? As was mentioned subsidize the farms. I don't think putting restrictions will help. Better labeling will, definitely. So long as you also educate the people about what's within the can or the box. People for the most part don't understand what the numbers mean. They don't know what those ingredients are. Ask someone in the grocery store next time what Riboflavin is. Will they be able to tell you? 9 times out of 10 I'm sure they won't. They cannot tell you it's also called Vitamin B2. The probably wouldn't be able to begin to tell you what its use is.

A lot of us had health class. How many remember what they learned there? For a lot of people it was an optional course and they rarely paid attention. Me? I only remember taking care of an egg and then we had talks about STDs. I don't remember a damn thing about diets and vitamins and minerals and vegetables. But I know we had that. I know it but I can't remember ever talking about it. The textbooks have the information but damn if people can remember it.

So where do we start? We start in the schools while also putting into action some subsidies. Putting a restriction as it is laid out in the article should be a last resort. But I'm scared we've gotten to that last resort phase. If need be we can also offer free health classes that give some sort of 'reward' for going. Get people to refresh their knowledge on the subject. People don't take kindly to being told 'this is bad' and then they are given no reason why. We don't like seemingly arbitrary rules. 'Because I said' doesn't work. For the most part you are educating adults. Don't treat them like children.

I probably got something wrong in there, but it's how I see things as they are.

&
"The human race. Greatest monsters of them all."
"Ke barjurir gar'ade, jagyc'ade kot'la a dalyc'ade kotla'shya."
Fucking Dalek twats I’m going to twat you over the head with my fucking TARDIS you fucking fucks!

Offline Cataclysm

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2458
Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
« Reply #103 on: February 03, 2012, 06:48:43 pm »
tl;dr

I think the best way to go about it, is to go after the corn subsides. That along with decent health education would have the biggest impact.

http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn

Yeah, that would help with a lot more too.
I'd be more sympathetic if people here didn't act like they knew what they were saying when they were saying something very much wrong.

Quote
Commenter Brendan Rizzo is an American (still living there) who really, really hates America. He used to make posts defending his country from anti-American attacks but got fed up with it all.

Offline Lithp

  • Official FSTDT Spokesman
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
Re: Regulate sugar like alcohol and cigarettes?
« Reply #104 on: February 03, 2012, 06:49:08 pm »
Quote
Lithp: Semantics are important when they change the very core of an argument; you know, the baseline concept.

They only do that if you're asshole enough to read the word "prohibition" & completely disregard the remaining context of the thread. Frankly.

Ask & ye shall receive. Did it because I don't trust the argument to just die out in a post or two.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 06:58:12 pm by Lithp »