NYC to Ban Big Sodas

Nutrition
101

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
SteelyD is like what, 250 at 5’9"? OK he’s strong, but are you gonna tell me that’s healthy? Why should I be saddled with his increased medical costs just because he likes walking around “full house”?
[/quote]

Dude, really-- STFU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

I get my bloodwork done twice a year, full panels. I’m “healthier” now than I was 5 years ago at 170.[/quote]

Agree SD that was stupid.

But we all know that sugar directly relates to obesity correct?

We put a sin tax on tobacco…here in Utah a can of Skoal is almost $7…why not do that for sugared drinks over 32oz?

American health insurance cannot handle the influx of fatties…so it really is ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS.
[/quote]

No its not.

Let insurance companies refuse obese people, problem solved.

No longer your problem, go and micromanage your own life instead of someone elses.

102

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
SteelyD is like what, 250 at 5’9"? OK he’s strong, but are you gonna tell me that’s healthy? Why should I be saddled with his increased medical costs just because he likes walking around “full house”?
[/quote]

Dude, really-- STFU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

I get my bloodwork done twice a year, full panels. I’m “healthier” now than I was 5 years ago at 170.[/quote]

Agree SD that was stupid.

But we all know that sugar directly relates to obesity correct?

We put a sin tax on tobacco…here in Utah a can of Skoal is almost $7…why not do that for sugared drinks over 32oz?

American health insurance cannot handle the influx of fatties…so it really is ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS.
[/quote]

A sin tax is not a ‘ban’. I’m not opposed to most ‘use taxes’ (especially when used as an alternative income tax), and that’s what a ‘sin tax’ is, although a bit selective and subjective as to who’s defining ‘sin’.

My comments regarding the virgin is his trying to use me as an example to make his point. He clearly knows nothing of my health history and current health.

Read up on how the feds somewhat mitigated the crack epidemic from the 80’s. They went after the ingredient producers and mitigated from the source. It’s pretty cut and dry that it was effective.

I’m not suggesting that the government target ‘sugar producers’ per se, but certainly undoing what they’ve done to promote cheap production of sugar (subsidies, etc) would be a start (IMO).

Shitty food is cheap to produce and cheap to buy. 32 oz soda costs pennies on the dollar (or less). When sugar becomes expensive like ‘the olden days’, you suddenly see it either go away or only used by relatively affluent people (think daily fillet mignon vs cheap hamburger).

103

It seems to me a misguided joke. Anyone who looks at the economic factors in healthcare knows that the far and away biggest problem facing the Western world is the massively increasing number of old people - who often need very large amounts of nearly full time care. Especially pertinent is the rise of Alzheimer’s among elderly people and other old age related mental illnesses.

Ms McFatty who dies of a heart attack at 60 will cost you far less than Ms Healthfoodnosmoking who needs 24 hour care for 15 years with Alzheimer’s or whatever.

Though if one looks at why people overeat, therapy would be a better approach at sorting their life out.

104

Good article looking at Bloomberg for what he is, a control freak:

[quote]
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg?s proposed ban on big sodas in the Big Apple is generating accusations that he is a Nanny Statist. But that?s not quite accurate. A nanny forces others to do things for their own good. Bloomberg is a moral narcissist forcing New Yorkers to do things that make him feel good.

… read article …

But public costs are simply a ruse for control freaks like Bloomberg to foist their personal choices on everybody else. To stop them will ultimately require restricting government to its essential functions. Until then, New Yorkers need to tell Bloomberg that they will gladly spend a little extra on people?s ?unhealthy? choices as a price for their liberties. Protecting their rights is more important than protecting their pocketbooks. [/quote]

105

guess the slope is slippery due to butter

106

Wow… large popcorns? That - and a large soda - are the most economical way to get popcorn for a family of four at the theater…

107

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Wow… large popcorns? That - and a large soda - are the most economical way to get popcorn for a family of four at the theater… [/quote]

Sitting too much is unhealthy. BAN LARGE CHAIRS

108

LOL @ “milk drinks” and popcorn now

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/18774940/health-panel-talks-about-wider-food-ban

109

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
LOL @ “milk drinks” and popcorn now

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/18774940/health-panel-talks-about-wider-food-ban[/quote]

I love how it starts out by saying the board that he hand-picked has to approve his ban lol.

110

talk about pure bullshit

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2012-06-07/coke-q-and-a-coca-cola-mayor-bloomberg/55453016/1

111

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
talk about pure bullshit

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2012-06-07/coke-q-and-a-coca-cola-mayor-bloomberg/55453016/1[/quote]

She’s a good puppet that one. Reminds of the dude from “Thank you for not smoking” . Thank You for Smoking (2005) - IMDb

I think the ban is dumb especially in places like movie theaters where couples commonly share large drinks that are like $7 to begin with. All the fast food places in NYC that I’ve been to offer free refills anyway. It’s just going to be big pain in the ass for the places like Wendy’s that don’t have self serve fountains. You have to go up and ask. I live 10 miles outside Manhattan so I’ll be curious to see how it pans out.

112

The US already has tariffs on sugar cane imports…

they subsidize corn and sugar beet production in the US to help US farmers compete against brazilian sugar cane…It would be political suicide to cut those subsidies…that is a critical region in the US for votes…I don’t see it happening ever…

as far as the nanny state, this is just the beginning…If the justices rule in favor of the health care bill next monday, the government will be able to influence people through the insurance market…insurers will eventually start putting a price on anything that increases the risk of a payout…it may not happen this year or next yr, but it will happen…

And, i actually see it as beneficial…it has been estimated that $1 trillion in economic productivity could be achieved if we reduced weight levels back to 1980s levels…In addition, if people spent less money on food, they would spend it on other products which will most likely support more important industries…It will also help put downward pressure food pricing as the world’s population increases…

sometimes the market is inefficient in the short term and requires government intervention to lead to the best outcome for society in the long term…that is what the tea partyists don’t understand…

113

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
SteelyD is like what, 250 at 5’9"? OK he’s strong, but are you gonna tell me that’s healthy? Why should I be saddled with his increased medical costs just because he likes walking around “full house”?
[/quote]

Dude, really-- STFU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

I get my bloodwork done twice a year, full panels. I’m “healthier” now than I was 5 years ago at 170.[/quote]

All that excess weight and the food needed to support it isn’t doing your heart or organs any favors. If that risk is worth it to you, carry on, but don’t act like its healthy.[/quote]

So, like I said before:

Dude, really-- STFU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Better yet-- keep typing. That way people will be able to fully appreciate how dumbass your statements are.[/quote]

LOLOLOL so you get “bloodwork” done twice a year…OK, that means that being 100 pounds over the ideal weight for your height is healthy. ROFLMAO thanks for the laugh, fatso. One look at your red, bloated face tells me all I need to know.

114

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]77 Style wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]77 Style wrote:
What worries me about things like this is that the people (government, medical boards, etc) that propose measures like this almost universally define obesity by BMI. Any body who is even a fairly successful builder or lifter, when judged solely by height v weight (BMI) would likely come up obese.

If measures like this result in lets say. . . higher insurance premiums for higher BMI's or higher food taxes for "unhealthy" foods (which would likely include beef,pork,eggs. . .hamburgers,BACON), a large number of people who enjoy this lifestyle (weightlifting, bodybuilding) would be unfairly affected. [/quote]

SteelyD is like what, 250 at 5’9"? OK he’s strong, but are you gonna tell me that’s healthy? Why should I be saddled with his increased medical costs just because he likes walking around “full house”?

And every successful lifter or builder who comes up as obese on the BMI has extra poundage they could lose. If being “big” is worth paying a higher premium to you, whatever, but don’t act like you’re not in a risky demographic like motorcycle riders or smokers.

I for one salute Bloomberg. Remember the outcry when he banned smoking indoors? Seems that nobody brings up the fact that the incidence of heart disease dropped by 7,000 the first year after going in effect–almost exactly what his statistics predicted.

On a population-level this will be effective and we will see a drop in obesity & diabetes in New York.[/quote]
Really Bro? I’m 5’11, 210 BMI chart puts me at borderline obese, in order to not be “overweight” I’d need to get below 179. 179!

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/bmi_tbl.pdf

[/quote]

I can’t see a photo of your physique, but yeah chances are you could stand to lose 5-10 extra pounds. If you are 5’11 210, ripped, I apologize, but chances are pretty low of that being the case.[/quote]

You just missed his whole point. If you define being overweight by BMI and desire people to have higher insurance premiums for it the guy you just told to lose 10 lbs. would still be considered overweight by 21 lbs.
[/quote]

If the premiums go up for obese patients, this gentleman would not be affected. 208 is still a BMI of 29. If he lost 5-10 pounds of fat, he would look better AND be in the clear. Get it?

115

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
SteelyD is like what, 250 at 5’9"? OK he’s strong, but are you gonna tell me that’s healthy? Why should I be saddled with his increased medical costs just because he likes walking around “full house”?
[/quote]

Dude, really-- STFU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

I get my bloodwork done twice a year, full panels. I’m “healthier” now than I was 5 years ago at 170.[/quote]

All that excess weight and the food needed to support it isn’t doing your heart or organs any favors. If that risk is worth it to you, carry on, but don’t act like its healthy.[/quote]

So, like I said before:

Dude, really-- STFU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Better yet-- keep typing. That way people will be able to fully appreciate how dumbass your statements are.[/quote]

LOLOLOL so you get “bloodwork” done twice a year…OK, that means that being 100 pounds over the ideal weight for your height is healthy. ROFLMAO thanks for the laugh, fatso. One look at your red, bloated face tells me all I need to know.
[/quote]

Goddammit, you’re a retard.

I can fix fat, but you can’t fix retard.

116

I swear if they come for Bacon there will be a fire fight.

117

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
SteelyD is like what, 250 at 5’9"? OK he’s strong, but are you gonna tell me that’s healthy? Why should I be saddled with his increased medical costs just because he likes walking around “full house”?
[/quote]

Dude, really-- STFU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

I get my bloodwork done twice a year, full panels. I’m “healthier” now than I was 5 years ago at 170.[/quote]

All that excess weight and the food needed to support it isn’t doing your heart or organs any favors. If that risk is worth it to you, carry on, but don’t act like its healthy.[/quote]

So, like I said before:

Dude, really-- STFU. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Better yet-- keep typing. That way people will be able to fully appreciate how dumbass your statements are.[/quote]

LOLOLOL so you get “bloodwork” done twice a year…OK, that means that being 100 pounds over the ideal weight for your height is healthy. ROFLMAO thanks for the laugh, fatso. One look at your red, bloated face tells me all I need to know.
[/quote]

what are you like 19?

118

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]77 Style wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:

[quote]77 Style wrote:
What worries me about things like this is that the people (government, medical boards, etc) that propose measures like this almost universally define obesity by BMI. Any body who is even a fairly successful builder or lifter, when judged solely by height v weight (BMI) would likely come up obese.

If measures like this result in lets say. . . higher insurance premiums for higher BMI's or higher food taxes for "unhealthy" foods (which would likely include beef,pork,eggs. . .hamburgers,BACON), a large number of people who enjoy this lifestyle (weightlifting, bodybuilding) would be unfairly affected. [/quote]

SteelyD is like what, 250 at 5’9"? OK he’s strong, but are you gonna tell me that’s healthy? Why should I be saddled with his increased medical costs just because he likes walking around “full house”?

And every successful lifter or builder who comes up as obese on the BMI has extra poundage they could lose. If being “big” is worth paying a higher premium to you, whatever, but don’t act like you’re not in a risky demographic like motorcycle riders or smokers.

I for one salute Bloomberg. Remember the outcry when he banned smoking indoors? Seems that nobody brings up the fact that the incidence of heart disease dropped by 7,000 the first year after going in effect–almost exactly what his statistics predicted.

On a population-level this will be effective and we will see a drop in obesity & diabetes in New York.[/quote]
Really Bro? I’m 5’11, 210 BMI chart puts me at borderline obese, in order to not be “overweight” I’d need to get below 179. 179!

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/bmi_tbl.pdf

[/quote]

I can’t see a photo of your physique, but yeah chances are you could stand to lose 5-10 extra pounds. If you are 5’11 210, ripped, I apologize, but chances are pretty low of that being the case.[/quote]

You just missed his whole point. If you define being overweight by BMI and desire people to have higher insurance premiums for it the guy you just told to lose 10 lbs. would still be considered overweight by 21 lbs.
[/quote]

If the premiums go up for obese patients, this gentleman would not be affected. 208 is still a BMI of 29. If he lost 5-10 pounds of fat, he would look better AND be in the clear. Get it?
[/quote]

Not obese but 29 is still considered overweight I believe which would carry with it a higher premium (just not as high as obese) in the hypothetical situation we are discussing. Basically all I am saying is that BMI is a flawed way to calculate overweight or not. Even doctors admit that anyone who carries a significant amount of muscle mass usually skews those numbers.

119

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
All that excess weight and the food needed to support it isn’t doing your heart or organs any favors. If that risk is worth it to you, carry on, but don’t act like its healthy.[/quote]

You are misinformed. Science simply does not support what you believe. Cardiovascular and internal health determines your life span independently of your body fat. For people with healthy insides, having lower body fat is simply incidental. Your body has no trouble keeping you alive by processing food lol.

You’re saying that giving your body more nutrients is detrimental. It is quite easy to be huge and muscular and have a healthy heart. You must be thinking that everyone who is strong is just like a retired offensive lineman on a perpetual dirty bulk.

You’re a disgrace to this forum.

120

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
All that excess weight and the food needed to support it isn’t doing your heart or organs any favors. If that risk is worth it to you, carry on, but don’t act like its healthy.[/quote]

You are misinformed. Science simply does not support what you believe. Cardiovascular and internal health determines your life span independently of your body fat. For people with healthy insides, having lower body fat is simply incidental. Your body has no trouble keeping you alive by processing food lol.

You’re saying that giving your body more nutrients is detrimental. It is quite easy to be huge and muscular and have a healthy heart. You must be thinking that everyone who is strong is just like a retired offensive lineman on a perpetual dirty bulk.

You’re a disgrace to this forum.[/quote]

this is true. In fact there is ample evidence that even “fat” not just high BMI people can be quite healthy as long as they’re physically active.