U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-16-2012, 10:42 AM
 
264 posts, read 255,798 times
Reputation: 108

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by likeminas View Post
Thats right. Red states tend to be unhealthier, and Texas has definitely more fatties than NY.
Blame that on the car culture, fast foods, high fructose corn syrup and all the processed foods those people love to consume.

In general the South has the highest prevalence of obese people in the US.

www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
No kidding. I love steak and every visit to El Paso is a feast, keeping that as a daily diet? Disastrous Texas is obese.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-16-2012, 11:08 AM
 
1,494 posts, read 2,594,808 times
Reputation: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by noworneveragain View Post
No kidding. I love steak and every visit to El Paso is a feast, keeping that as a daily diet? Disastrous Texas is obese.
Steak? Bacon? Cheese? Full fat yogurt? I eat that often and I'm not fat not to mention my cholesterol is low- oh what a disaster!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2012, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD / NY
781 posts, read 1,124,531 times
Reputation: 434
@Alkonost, had a busy weekend, but, did want to get back to your reply...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkonost View Post
And the older group was consuming less calories and yet weighed more, which goes to show that obesity is not always an issue of overeating or food choices.
That statement is not necessarily true, at least for the article you were originally referencing (and, I'm breaking it down for others on this board that may not read it but should have all the facts). This was a cross-sectional (one-time, snapshot) study, rather than a longitudinal study following children (from youth into adolescence) over time. So, we have no historical data about the older obese children in this study--nothing about what type of and which factors could have led to their obesity in the first place. Hence, obesity at least in this group very may well have had a significant link to overeating, food choices, or caloric intake, especially within the older adolescent population studied--but, again, you couldn't derive that from the way this study was conducted in the first place, whether to support my argument or yours. Again, and, I emphasize this for those that won't read this article--the researchers found that younger children were in fact consuming more calories on a daily basis than their same-aged, healthy weight peers. Things 'flipped' for the older children in the studied cohort by age 7 for girls and age 10 for boys; they found the older adolescents were consuming less calories but still weighed more--however, this study, based upon its design, was limited in its ability to explain why and how this 'change' occurred. (Note, this was a cross-sectional, survey based upon self-reported dietary intake.)

From the article: "WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Self-reported energy intake for younger, but not older, overweight/obese children is higher than healthy- weight peers. In early childhood, higher (or excessive) energy intake may lead to onset of obesity, but other mechanisms may be important to maintain obesity through adolescence."

No one is discounting other factors (known or unknown at this time) could be at play, including myself--but, when I bring this back to the soda discussion, the article emphasized early intervention in the form of restricted caloric intervention, especially for youth; for children, especially those in low-income areas of NYC where fast food stores outnumber healthier alternatives, soda in excessively giant containers is a good start. These are 'empty' calories from sugar, many are unknowing of the true health implications, and, the industry is preying on them and their circumstances. Granted, McMinimizing soda cups is not the only thing to do, and I could list hundreds of other things I would like to have happen alongside it, but, it's a start, and, I applaud Bloomberg for his out-of-thebox efforts to improve the overall health of NYC residents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkonost View Post
One study of thousands with a steadily growing number of other studies confirming the data that the body does not always shed weight in the face of caloric restriction, and finding that the body actively resists doing so.
Confirm versus support. This study, that you introduced, emphasizes the importance of restricted caloric intake on overweight and obese youth. For older obese children, the researchers recognize that obesity, compounded by other factors, makes this a much more complex situation to treat than just a reduction in calories. I'm not disagreeing with you on this, and, believe a multi-modal approach is probably best, but, to bring it back to the discussion at hand, that doesn't open the flood gates for a profit-driven, industry-led free-for-all with soda and other unhealthy foods or drinks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkonost View Post
Yes, you do have to have the human metabolism figured out or you have NO CREDIBILITY when making claims on how to fight the "War" on obesity. Not too long ago the government with our "best interest" at heart (but none of the knowledge to back it up, but plenty of food industry lobbyist's reassurances) thought it was a healthy idea for people gorge on carbs- where the hell did that get us? Why would you encourage the same kind of mistakes stemming from complete ignorance on human biology?
This is akin to the thought that because we do not understand the full biological and genetic bases (and, it's interplay with the environment and other important factors), of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses, that when someone experiences their 'first break', starts reporting delusions, or, displays disorganized behavior, that, we shouldn't diagnose it as schizophrenia, or, treat for it, despite the fact that we don't completely understand all the intricacies of the condition, and the medications used to presently treat. If we operated in this way, we would never get ahead.

The bottom line, in my book and the book of many health professionals and researchers, (you are entitled to believe what you'd like to believe), is that a 20 oz soda containing the equivalent of 16 packets of sugar is unhealthy. It will never be healthy, even if everything 'not fully understood' in the human metabolism arena as you claim is finally understood. And, I'll bet my ability to consume soda on it for the rest of my life with that statement. Flag this post, come back for me in 20 years.

Further, there are good carbs and bad carbs, just as there are good sugars and bad sugars. Knowing the difference, eating in moderation, and, being wise and educated about what you consume is of importance here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkonost View Post
First, not everyone gains weight from drinking soda, second, there's a BIG difference between how the body handles/processes/reacts to glucose, fructose and high fructose corn syrup. Considering the multitude of factors that effect weight, ranging from biological to environmental Branding "soda" as the root of all evil is the ultimate cop out of the century.
That's dandy. No one is branding it as the root of all evil. I even said in an earlier post that this is one of many factors contributing to obesity. It's a baby step in the right direction. Bloomberg didn't just introduce this piece, there's also calories on menus, smoking and transfat bans, etc. He's at least trying, and, I'd rather have someone fight, and try, rather than have the profit-driven industry dictate, and bamboozle those less fortunate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkonost View Post
You could benefit from a pub med search as well. Search for biological determinism and epigenetic factors in obesity, obesity caused by metabolic disorders, insulin resistance, PCOS, menopause and weight gain, hormonal adaptations to weight loss, and while you're at it maybe you can explain why 98% of all diets fail in the long term. The truth is the human metabolism and energy regulation systems are so poorly understood people who claim to know what's best for solving obesity are just throwing random hopes against the wall and hoping that it sticks. The public deserves better then that, they deserve honesty instead of an overreaching goverment eager to control every detail of our lives while AMA only cares about keeping the doctor's wallet's fat.
Yes, but, right now, we were just talking about soda, and excessive consumption of unhealthy sugars, leading to the preventative measure ban. These other pieces you list are important, and no one is discounting them, but, let's try to stay on topic for the sake of our time and sanity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkonost View Post
I've done better than just reading biology texts.
Good for you. Come down to Hopkins and we can have a pissing contest in person. Or, next time I'm in NY, let's arrange a time and place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkonost View Post
The majority of your suggestions advocate blaming the patient as opposed to practicing medicine. There is a lot of research out there that casts enormous doubt on the ancient calories-in/out dogma, clinging to that that has only made the problem worse by labeling it a lifestyle issue when there's clearly metabolic and genetic factors at play.
Not blaming the patient. We were specifically talking about individual behavior and choices on this thread. I did put in parenthesis the social determinants of health in example, as a discussion to have for another day, it's too long and tiresome for this forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkonost View Post
A power grab for the government to dictate the actions of businesses and the behavior of citizens where they do not have the constitutional power to do so in the first place. They never let a "crisis" go to waste and use scare tactics to bully the public into handing over their freedoms for the "greater good". A disembowelment of individual rights, a mockery of freedom and autonomy, and overall ****ting down the throat of free will.
The industry has silently increased the size of soda cans/containers over the past 4 decades without your consent, making us look like the sheep for not fighting back and going along with it without budge. This is excess. Just as there's a legal drinking limit, a law for seat belts, sanitation codes, etc., the structure of government is designed to intervene when public health of the entire state is involved or at question. Further, this isn't a ban on soda, you can still go out and get a refill, go to the supermarket and buy bottles of soda to your little heart's content. The ban, as I see it, is a tested, effective stopgap, warning procedure--a wake up call--just like the calories listed on menus at food establishments--makes you think twice about consuming that much soda, (you are free to go get another refill), or that 350 calorie chocolate brownie at Starbucks sitting pretty in the case. Looks can be deceiving. If everyone knew exactly how much sugar they were consuming in a 'Big Gulp' or how many sugar-based calories were within one piece of that small but calorie-packed brownie, and, more importantly, about the potential effects it can have on your long-term health, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkonost View Post
Claiming that this is an "attempt to curb excess" and to punish the evil soda companies might work to convince the sheep, but not for me. Furthermore, most of the goverment involvement when it comes to food steering food consumption is driven by lobbyists in the first place.
Just out of curiosity, is it Pepsi or Coca Cola?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkonost View Post
So I'll take the 20oz soda over enslavement in a heartbeat.
More power to you. I'll take the few extra years of life expectancy for myself, and, for those that may be positively affected by this ban.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkonost View Post
You are aware of the fact that the AMA gets a lot of it's funding from big pharma, right? They don't have a very good track record of being interested in public health, but rather being the submissive ***** of whoever funds them the most.
Everyone gets funding from everyone, nothing new. The content of the message was why it was posted, not because of where it was coming from, per se.

Last edited by MobileVisitor09; 09-16-2012 at 01:04 PM.. Reason: Fixed quoting!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2012, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD / NY
781 posts, read 1,124,531 times
Reputation: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by likeminas View Post

I think a better approach to this would've been a heavy added tax on sugary drinks.
The newly generated revenue could be used for informational campaigns and perhaps financing of obesity programs.

Anyways, that's my take on this.
No to a ban but yes to an added tax on sugary drinks.
He attempted a tax first, but politics got in the way. This was a secondary way introduced to circumvent the politics.

Taken from a recent Forbes article: NYC's Soda Ban Is A Good Idea, But A Tax Would Be Better - Forbes

The industry’s powerful lobby quickly quashed efforts to include a soda tax in President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), thereby eliminating a major potential source of funding and forcing greater cuts to Medicare. Politics also doomed Mayor Bloomberg’s initial proposal for a soda tax, which I think of as “the plan before the ban.”
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2012, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD / NY
781 posts, read 1,124,531 times
Reputation: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy View Post
You guys and your freedom rhetoric is laughable...unfortunately there are so many "real Americans" who feel this way. They keep regurgitating how their right are taken away...what is being taken away? Your freedom to drink 36 ounces of soda... YOU CAN STILL DO THAT ALL DAY EVERY DAY. You just have to buy 3 12 oz sodas...the horror! Currently you are not able to have a 120 ounce soda...so the soda companies are taking away your freedom to do that also right...why aren't you complaining to them about how they are taking your freedom by not offering 120 ounce soda?

YOU as a consumer never made the decision to drink a 20 ounce soda..it was the soda corporations dictating the size that best suits THEM, and then acclimating you to exceess. The real culprit not only making us fatter/sicker, but also taking away our rights/freedoms, are those corporations pushing excess under the guise of "freedom"...all for their own profits...and they have no responsibility to these health repercussions..the tax payer/government does. So when the government tries to blunt this to PROTECT YOU, the foolish shout "freedom!"

Does anyone actually think anymore, or simply shout nonsense phrases because it sounds good? Alkonost is trying his best to be a good Pepsi/Coke consumer, and they do appreciate that..so feel free to buy 25 12 ounce sodas...and find a real policy which impacts your freedom, like the Citizens United Supreme Court Ruling.
Thank you for injecting some rationality into this thread.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2012, 04:23 PM
 
10,090 posts, read 17,874,215 times
Reputation: 10678
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileVisitor09 View Post
This is akin to the thought that because we do not understand the full biological and genetic bases (and, it's interplay with the environment and other important factors), of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses, that when someone experiences their 'first break', starts reporting delusions, or, displays disorganized behavior, that, we shouldn't diagnose it as schizophrenia, or, treat for it, despite the fact that we don't completely understand all the intricacies of the condition, and the medications used to presently treat. If we operated in this way, we would never get ahead.
You rarely treat a patient without consent, even for mental illness. So if you're claiming the soda ban to be akin to treatment, you've already admitted it's unethical.

Quote:
The bottom line, in my book and the book of many health professionals and researchers, (you are entitled to believe what you'd like to believe), is that a 20 oz soda containing the equivalent of 16 packets of sugar is unhealthy. It will never be healthy, even if everything 'not fully understood' in the human metabolism arena as you claim is finally understood. And, I'll bet my ability to consume soda on it for the rest of my life with that statement. Flag this post, come back for me in 20 years.
Never? So if someone has just burned 3000 calories in a marathon, drinking a 20 oz soda with 240 calories of sugar shortly afterwards is "unhealthy"? No, I'm sorry, it's actually what you call "a good start".

Quote:
That's dandy. No one is branding it as the root of all evil. I even said in an earlier post that this is one of many factors contributing to obesity. It's a baby step in the right direction.
And here's where all those insisting it's not a big deal get it wrong. It's a step all right; a step in the wrong direction, and each step makes it easier to take the next one

Quote:
Yes, but, right now, we were just talking about soda, and excessive consumption of unhealthy sugars
There are no unhealthy sugars, per se. At least not in soda.

Quote:
The industry has silently increased the size of soda cans/containers over the past 4 decades without your consent, making us look like the sheep for not fighting back and going along with it without budge.
The "big gulp" dates to 1980, and its introduction was hardly "silent". The 12oz can of soda has been a standard size for a very long time -- since the 1930s. Packaged soda now comes in sizes ranging from 7.5 oz to 3 liter, with a whole spectrum of sizes in between -- 8 oz, 12 oz, 16 oz, 20 oz, 1/2 litre, 32 oz, liter, 1.5 liter, 2 liter, 3 liter at least, probably more. You want to "fight back", just buy a smaller one.

Quote:
This is excess. Just as there's a legal drinking limit
There isn't. You can drink (alcohol) as much as you want. You can drink yourself to death and commit no crime in the process.

Quote:
More power to you. I'll take the few extra years of life expectancy for myself, and, for those that may be positively affected by this ban.
How about you start making choices only for yourself, and stop trying to make choices for other people, even if it is for their own good?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2012, 05:33 PM
 
40 posts, read 162,408 times
Reputation: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by djones748 View Post
The fack is a cheddar biscuit? Actually sounds pretty tasty. Dare I visit red lobster one day?
Something is fishy ( no pun intended ) when the customers of a seafood restaurant ALL rave about that particular restaurant's cheddar biscuits!! I've never heard anyone rave about their seafood...LOL
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2012, 07:32 PM
 
10,090 posts, read 17,874,215 times
Reputation: 10678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gesarsenal View Post
Something is fishy ( no pun intended ) when the customers of a seafood restaurant ALL rave about that particular restaurant's cheddar biscuits!! I've never heard anyone rave about their seafood...LOL
The only thing their seafood is good for is food poisoning.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2012, 06:17 AM
 
Location: Bergen County, NJ
9,855 posts, read 24,214,189 times
Reputation: 3604
The city would never limit condom purchases. The city even came out with a brand of condoms...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2012, 06:23 AM
 
Location: Bergen County, NJ
9,855 posts, read 24,214,189 times
Reputation: 3604
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
The only thing their seafood is good for is food poisoning.
Did that actually happen to you? Not saying Red Lobster is amazing but I find it and the likes of Ruby Tuesday, Outback, to be some of the better chain sit-down restaurants.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top