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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-14-2012, 03:00 AM
 
1,494 posts, read 2,597,526 times
Reputation: 928

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileVisitor09 View Post
The recent study I believe you are referring to is based upon NHANES data, and, has its own limitations related to study design and confounding factors, which in turn affect interpretability and generalizability. Further, younger obese children in the studied cohort were in fact consuming more calories than their non-obese, same-aged peers. That's also one study of thousands.
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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileVisitor09 View Post
Soda is unhealthy. It has documented negative effects on health. You don't need to "have the human metabolism completely figured out" to discern. Go to PubMed, type in soda, soda intake, soda and weight...
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?

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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileVisitor09 View Post
Further, calories derived from carbs, proteins, sugars, and fats are not alike; i.e., 400 calories from salmon and spinach dinner, versus 400 calories from 1 liter of Coke. A biology text can explain in greater detail. Soda has an exorbitantly high amount of calories, all from sugar.
I've done better than just reading biology texts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileVisitor09 View Post
And, as I mentioned earlier, imho, this ban is one step in the right direction, but, of course not the ultimate cure all to address obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. Physical activity, general lifestyle, overall diet, portion size, access to healthcare, preventative medicine, (often leading to the social determinants of health discussion), etc. all play a role. Baby steps...
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileVisitor09 View Post
Lastly, power grab for what? For who? With soda? Really? This is no more than a simple attempt to limit absolute excess, a concept that has been progressively force-fed to the American public by profit-driven fast food companies and soft drink makers over the past several decades, all looking to hook the vulnerable. The worse that could happen is that this ban actually ends up improving the long-term health for NYC residents. I'll trade in a 20 oz. soda for that any day.
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.

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.

So I'll take the 20oz soda over enslavement in a heartbeat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileVisitor09 View Post
For immediate release:
June 20, 2012

Chicago – The American Medical Association (AMA), the nation's largest physician group, voted today at its Annual Meeting to adopt policy addressing the obesity epidemic.

"While there is no silver bullet that will alone reverse the meteoric rise of obesity, there are many things we can do to fight this epidemic and improve the health of our nation," said AMA board member Alexander Ding, M.D. "Improved consumer education on the adverse health effects of excessive consumption of beverages containing added sweeteners should be a key part of any multifaceted campaign to combat obesity."

A number of studies have shown that intake of sugar-sweetened beverages has been strongly and consistency associated with increased body weight and a number of health conditions like type 2 diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages comprise nearly half of Americans' added sugar intake, and reducing consumption of these beverages is a simple way to reduce intake of added sugar and empty calories.

Entire article can be read here:
AMA Adopts Policy Addressing Obesity, Beverages with Added Sweeteners
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-14-2012, 06:18 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
2,895 posts, read 5,667,365 times
Reputation: 2177
This doesnt affect me at all since I dont buy sugary drinks. Anyway, I'm against bans, and while I agree that something needs to be done about the fatties walking around drinking themselves to death, this doesnt strike me as the right way to do it.
In some ways food addiction is not much different from other types of addiction but as we've already seen with drugs, a ban, doesnt help to curb consumption.


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.

Last edited by likeminas; 09-14-2012 at 06:33 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2012, 06:54 AM
 
8,747 posts, read 17,629,990 times
Reputation: 4168
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?

Mobilevistor said it all very well:

"Lastly, power grab for what? For who? With soda? Really? This is no more than a simple attempt to limit absolute excess, a concept that has been progressively force-fed to the American public by profit-driven fast food companies and soft drink makers over the past several decades, all looking to hook the vulnerable. The worse that could happen is that this ban actually ends up improving the long-term health for NYC residents. I'll trade in a 20 oz. soda for that any day."

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.

Last edited by SobroGuy; 09-14-2012 at 07:47 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2012, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn New York
17,516 posts, read 29,503,759 times
Reputation: 25534
Quote:
Originally Posted by likeminas View Post
This doesnt affect me at all since I dont buy sugary drinks. Anyway, I'm against bans, and while I agree that something needs to be done about the fatties walking around drinking themselves to death, this doesnt strike me as the right way to do it.
In some ways food addiction is not much different from other types of addiction but as we've already seen with drugs, a ban, doesnt help to curb consumption.


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.

Just like they did on cigarets.

so basically anything that is basically not good for you should be taxed to death, but what happens when no one smokes or drinks sugary drinks, where will the money come form.????

It is so noble of our Mayor to be concerned about our health.

How about the airplanes flying so low over Brooklyn, and we are breathing in all these jet fumes every day.....that is sickening, doesn't the Mayor think that has an effect on our lives, not to mention "quality of life" as well, but the Mayor doesn't care about that....jet fumes effects more people than a frickin sugary drink.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2012, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Sunnyside
2,008 posts, read 4,493,132 times
Reputation: 1274
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightcrawler View Post
How about the airplanes flying so low over Brooklyn, and we are breathing in all these jet fumes every day.....that is sickening, doesn't the Mayor think that has an effect on our lives, not to mention "quality of life" as well, but the Mayor doesn't care about that....jet fumes effects more people than a frickin sugary drink.
I'm pretty sure that the airport was there before the people that live there now were. If you CHOOSE (with your freedoms) to live by an airport, that is no one's fault but your own. commercial Planes can't just come nose down and then lift up at the runway like a fighter jet.

just like you can't move next to a freeway and then complain about all the noise, or moving underneath the subway tracks. or anything of the like. It is your choice to live there.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2012, 07:51 AM
 
Location: USA
8,012 posts, read 10,808,069 times
Reputation: 3442
some people don't even buy sodas everyday.
they just buy them every blue moon as an
occasional pleasure. i see a lot more 12 packs
being bought now.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2012, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn New York
17,516 posts, read 29,503,759 times
Reputation: 25534
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinnayyy View Post
I'm pretty sure that the airport was there before the people that live there now were. If you CHOOSE (with your freedoms) to live by an airport, that is no one's fault but your own. commercial Planes can't just come nose down and then lift up at the runway like a fighter jet.

just like you can't move next to a freeway and then complain about all the noise, or moving underneath the subway tracks. or anything of the like. It is your choice to live there.

Um no, we never had air traffic like this in the 30 years I have been living in my building, ( Bath Beach) it is only within the last 2 years they changed the air traffic patterns, and now I hear the planes. Years ago we saw them high up in the far distance, never heard them. They flew farther away and higher, now they are much lower and closer, where I hear them.

and now most of Brooklyn is suffering because the planes have to fly over us to get to La Guardia. They are now much lower, ask anyone from Park Slope, Carroll Gardens, Bay Ridge and they will tell you.

so no, I did not chose to live near an air path, it was never here. ****sticks tongue out***

I do however have the elevated train up the block, I see it, I hear it, I like it. That has been there before I chose the apartment and that is not the problem.


Now getting back to the sodas, the ban really makes no sense, if people want more soda, they will simply buy another one.

Last edited by nightcrawler; 09-14-2012 at 08:05 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2012, 08:14 AM
 
Location: Sunnyside
2,008 posts, read 4,493,132 times
Reputation: 1274
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightcrawler View Post
Um no, we never had air traffic like this in the 30 years I have been living in my building, ( Bath Beach) it is only within the last 2 years they changed the air traffic patterns, and now I hear the planes. Years ago we saw them high up in the far distance, never heard them. They flew farther away and higher, now they are much lower and closer, where I hear them.

and now most of Brooklyn is suffering because the planes have to fly over us to get to La Guardia. They are now much lower, ask anyone from Park Slope, Carroll Gardens, Bay Ridge and they will tell you.

so no, I did not chose to live near an air path, it was never here. ****sticks tongue out***

I do however have the elevated train up the block, I see it, I hear it, I like it. That has been there before I chose the apartment and that is not the problem.


Now getting back to the sodas, the ban really makes no sense, if people want more soda, they will simply buy another one.
take offs and landings are supposed to be regulated to not pollute as much. at altitudes over 3000 feet is where it's no longer regulated. and regulators are trying to get that regulated better as well as to not pollute as much. So good news for you is there is stuff in the works to help on that.

I've lived 25 miles away from an airport my whole life and went to school that was 5 miles away and never even noticed it too much. i guess because of having 2 airports so close together doesn't really help at all.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2012, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn New York
17,516 posts, read 29,503,759 times
Reputation: 25534
Quote:
Originally Posted by WithDisp View Post
How about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?!


some people are retards though, and have not a clue.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2012, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
2,895 posts, read 5,667,365 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightcrawler View Post
Just like they did on cigarets.

so basically anything that is basically not good for you should be taxed to death, but what happens when no one smokes or drinks sugary drinks, where will the money come form.????

It is so noble of our Mayor to be concerned about our health.

How about the airplanes flying so low over Brooklyn, and we are breathing in all these jet fumes every day.....that is sickening, doesn't the Mayor think that has an effect on our lives, not to mention "quality of life" as well, but the Mayor doesn't care about that....jet fumes effects more people than a frickin sugary drink.
Thats right like cigaretes.
Dont ban anything, just discourage it.
I know you hate bloomberg, and I'm no fan of him either but we need to analyze things dispassionatelly.
Let's also not forget that a large percentage of (minority) populations are obese and within that subset many are medicaid receipients, so we, in a way are subsidizing their consumption of sugary drinks and later footing their medical bills. Even if you have private insurance, an overall increase in one illness, will raise costs for everybody.
Why should we collectively subsidize unhealthy behavior? Thats why I dont say ban it -outright- but rather tax those people so they can help pay for their own future illnesses or at the very least they can help pay for informational campaings warning of the health effects of sugary drinks.
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. The time now is 02:07 AM.

© 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