Jump to content

What do you think needs to be done to combat the obesity epidemic?


Varysblackfyre321

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Yes. That's why I propose to start with a soda tax. It's reasonably easy to define and it's extremely well researched, with tons of evidence, that sugar sweetened drinks are bad for you. If the dieticians can agree on anything, it would be that. 

Much better off just imposing a sugar tax, soda is too narrow a scope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

Much better off just imposing a sugar tax, soda is too narrow a scope.

I'dI agree that the soda tax is too narrow a scope to completely reverse the trend, but it's a start. What I fear is that a general sugar tax would be much more difficult to implement. First, is that a tax on all sugar or just added sugar? Things like orange juice and dried fruit contains loads of sugar naturally - would they be included or not? Where to draw the line between taxed and untaxed cereal? And of course ridiculously unhealthy food like French fries and bearnaise sauce would go completely untaxed due to their low sugar content. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2019 at 8:42 AM, baxus said:

If we were to Google research on frequency of physical exercise and obesity rate would there be correlation? ;) 

Actually no, there wouldn't. Kinda neat, that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, baxus said:

For the sake of argument, it needs to be pointed out that many middle and upper class people work more than 40 hours a week, too. It's not limited to lower class population. The difference being that it's for reasons other than basic survival, of course.

 

And since 60%+ of the US population is overweight or worse, clearly it isn't just poverty that is an issue. 

My suspicion for the Sweden vs. the US thing is that if you cross-plotted socioeconomic conditions AND race conditions, you'd find that the US and Sweden were pretty close to the same - the main difference is that minorities in the US suffer even more, combined with the poor health care that the poor receive. 

10 hours ago, baxus said:

Bolded part is what I meant when I said that food industry is doing what it's supposed to do - make profit. Wish I'd phrased it like this. 

That doesn't absolve them of fault - which is what you said. And while they're making profit, they (like the tobacco industry) are knowingly creating addictive foods that people will overeat while claiming that they don't know anything of the sort. 

That is not just 'making profit'. That is deliberately causing harm in order to gain profits. 

Even better, the same companies that are doing this are also selling diet fads. Much like the Oxycontin manufacturer who is now selling Nalaxone. 

10 hours ago, baxus said:

I agree with you about restrictions, too. The tricky part might be that there's more of a grey area on what makes food healthy or not. For example, there are people who would claim red meat is healthy and others who would oppose such a claim. It's much more straightforward with alcohol and tobacco.

There's a whole lot of food that we consider that basically no amount is healthy. Added sugar, as an example, has zero health benefits. There's no gray area there. You'll not find a single dietician that thinks added sugar is healthy. Trans fats is another one. A whole lot of artificial values and whatnot are in the same boat. 

Salt in the doses that we have in our diet is another example; humans get far more salt than is necessary for any kind of intake, and eating things without added salt we would be fine in the vast majority of cases. 

And we know this, and we also know that the food industry knows this. And they have deliberately chosen not to do anything about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

I'dI agree that the soda tax is too narrow a scope to completely reverse the trend, but it's a start. What I fear is that a general sugar tax would be much more difficult to implement. First, is that a tax on all sugar or just added sugar? Things like orange juice and dried fruit contains loads of sugar naturally - would they be included or not? Where to draw the line between taxed and untaxed cereal? And of course ridiculously unhealthy food like French fries and bearnaise sauce would go completely untaxed due to their low sugar content.  

Honestly bearnaise sauce isn't a particular problem right now. (and it's not particularly unhealthy in proper portion sizes). 

French fries are a different problem, but you can get around that by either taxing all fried food (probably the right choice) or banning certain kinds of oils for frying. 

It's already becoming a requirement that products label how much added sugar they have. Taxing it based on that isn't hard. 

Orange juice (if it is juice) and dried fruit contain no sugar at all. Some juices do add sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, but don't mistake that for naturally-occurring fructose, which isn't the same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2019 at 3:40 AM, baxus said:

I don't find them at fault. They are working within the laws and rules set upon them. When we, as a society, impose different set of rules on them then they will operate within those. Until then, they are doing nothing wrong according to the current set of rules. 

Yeah, again - you don't find them at fault. I'm not talking legally. I'm talking about what the actual cause of the obesity issues in the US (and largely elsewhere) are. And the food industry is easily the top reason. 

On 3/13/2019 at 3:40 AM, baxus said:

We can disagree with what they are doing on a personal level, chose to spend as little as possible on their products and financially support alternative food manufacturers. If we don't do that, then it's OUR fault, not food industry's fault. 

I've pointed out several ways how this is functionally impossible for people living in society to do. 

On 3/13/2019 at 3:40 AM, baxus said:

Hey, let's get real here. It is in human nature to go down the path of least resistance. No one is denying that. Still, that doesn't mean we HAVE to take that path, does it? It is difficult to make the right choices again and again, but those are still the right choices to make whether we like it or not. 

People know they shouldn't shoot up heroin. Hell, they know that they shouldn't smoke. You are either going to care about fixing the problem, accepting that people will not change unless it is made easier for them to do so, or you are simply going to accept the problem existing. 

And hey, that's fine! Maybe you're one of those libertarian 'assume a spherical person' types who believes that no industry has any responsibility and it's entirely a person's responsibility, and if they want to get fat, good on them.

In which case, why do you care about the epidemic at all

On 3/13/2019 at 3:40 AM, baxus said:

No one forces your hand to fit into society's expectations. Society makes it easier for you to fit into its expectations than to stand out but you can still stand out. I don't give a rat's ass about people considering me weird. 

This is incorrect, and I think if you examined your life you'd find out how narrow your weirdness is. If you don't believe me, wear a dress tomorrow in public. 

Humans are social animals. It is possible to resist socialization, but not for very long unless you are a sociopath. It is literally torture to do otherwise. As a human you are forced to fit into society's expectations, because that is what humanity is. 

On 3/13/2019 at 3:40 AM, baxus said:

I'm not really going to go back to this one after saying this - you can chose to wait for society to shift so that it suits your wishes to lose weight and eat healthy or you can start eating healthy, exercising and losing weight by doing what needs to be done. I'm not even buying that you'd be sticking out of society's norms by doing that. It's never been more socially acceptable to eat healthy and workout. It is difficult though and that's why most people don't stick with it. 

I am simply saying that this method does not, in any way, fix the problem. And that problem is costing the people money via lost income, lost wages, lost time, healthcare, injuries, all sorts of things. 

And you're right - it is up to the individual. At the same time, I do not believe for a second you recognize how very, very hard it is for people. And until you do, the problem won't be solved. 

On 3/13/2019 at 3:40 AM, baxus said:

You can try to absolve the individual people from all the responsibility all you like, it won't make it true. 

I didn't. I just said it isn't mostly their responsibility, and I said that they aren't lazy and dumb for being obese. 

On 3/13/2019 at 3:40 AM, baxus said:

As long as there are non-obese people in societies you claim do not support a lifestyle that's not leading to obesity, that argument does not stand. 

It certainly does if you assume your genetic makeup is going to correlate strongly to how addicted  you are to things, how you metabolize certain substances, and what food is available locally to you. 

On 3/13/2019 at 3:40 AM, baxus said:

Where am I saying that I'm not willing to support regulating the industries?

When you argue with me constantly about it, when you say that 'no one is willing to do that', when you say that it isn't the fault of the companies. 

On 3/13/2019 at 3:40 AM, baxus said:

I'm all for regulating the industries but I'm saying that it will take decades for that to work, like it did with tobacco and, to a lesser extent, alcohol.

20% reduction in soda consumption after a cent per ounce tax. In one year. It can happen a lot faster than you think. 

On 3/13/2019 at 3:40 AM, baxus said:

On the other hand, you are the one who gave up on generations of people who will suffer from obesity until that happens. 

You've suggested no policy other than 'blame the people and guilt them into feeling bad'. If that's your policy, then yes - I accept that the people are largely going to be overweight and that we need to stop thinking about how to make them not overweight and think more about how to manage them. 

Again, we already know the outcome of your worldview - ever increasing obesity. 

On 3/13/2019 at 3:40 AM, baxus said:

When it comes to addiction, the addict needs to commit to rehab, needs to want to get clean, needs to do what therapists prescribe etc. If there is be a support system in place then that's great and might be helpful but it's once again down to the individual to put in all the work to fight it and beat it. 

That's all true - but the most important thing is that it has to be an option to get help and that help needs to be easy to do. 

On 3/13/2019 at 3:40 AM, baxus said:

I'm not blaming anyone, I'm saying there's an element of personal responsibility in the matter and there is. 

You've been saying that it is solely their responsibility. You literally said that above! 

On 3/13/2019 at 3:40 AM, baxus said:

Once again, for people who seem to either have difficulty understanding English or have a tendency to put words into people's mouths - tobacco/food/pharma/petroleum/etc. industry should be as heavily regulated as possible but that takes time and generations of people will suffer until that gives results. 

And you have said that we shouldn't bother at all. That isn't words in your mouth, that's a quote. I'm sorry that you're not clearer in expressing your views. 

On 3/13/2019 at 3:40 AM, baxus said:

 

I'm definitely not going to come back to this subject since my arguments seem to fall on deaf ears and I don't see the point of continuing.

You've posted 4 times already. So much for that individual responsibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

I'dI agree that the soda tax is too narrow a scope to completely reverse the trend, but it's a start. What I fear is that a general sugar tax would be much more difficult to implement. First, is that a tax on all sugar or just added sugar? Things like orange juice and dried fruit contains loads of sugar naturally - would they be included or not? Where to draw the line between taxed and untaxed cereal? And of course ridiculously unhealthy food like French fries and bearnaise sauce would go completely untaxed due to their low sugar content. 

 

Every fracking time sugar is mentioned people hysterically start flipping the shit out over orange juice.  Orange juice needs to stop having a rhetorical veto over policy. And it’s fructose anyway so not even under discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait - fructose isn't sugar now? Like, Coke should be exempt from the tax as long as it's sweetened with high fructose corn syrup instead of sucrose? That's nonsense. All the sugars are hydrolysed in the body and they have similar effects.

But fine, I agree that orange juice shouldn't block any legislation, I'm just pointing out the difficulties in making a general rule for how a sugar tax should be implemented. I'm not against it, I just think it will be hard to pass such legislation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Wait - fructose isn't sugar now? Like, Coke should be exempt from the tax as long as it's sweetened with high fructose corn syrup instead of sucrose? That's nonsense. All the sugars are hydrolysed in the body and they have similar effects.

 But fine, I agree that orange juice shouldn't block any legislation, I'm just pointing out the difficulties in making a general rule for how a sugar tax should be implemented. I'm not against it, I just think it will be hard to pass such legislation. 

Well, for starters HFCS is about 50% glucose, so it's not equivalent to fructose by itself anyway. But honestly? I'm cool with limiting it provided that it's added extra. If people went from drinking soda to OJ, that would be significantly healthier for a whole lot of reasons, assuming that it isn't a 'contains 11% OJ' kind of fruit juice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, for starters HFCS is about 50% glucose, so it's not equivalent to fructose by itself anyway. But honestly? I'm cool with limiting it provided that it's added extra. If people went from drinking soda to OJ, that would be significantly healthier for a whole lot of reasons, assuming that it isn't a 'contains 11% OJ' kind of fruit juice. 

Not entirely relevant, but I'm gonna talk a bit of chemistry.

HFCS contains varying ratios depending on the formula, HFCS 42 contains 42% fructose and is what you find mostly processed foods, whereas HFCS 55 contains 55% fructose and is used to sweeten pop. As I recall, it's called "high fructose" because initially it is indeed almost pure fructose. But that fructose is then converted to glucose to make various mixtures.

As such we can't really say "fructose isn't a problem" because if we do that, than HFCS manufacturers will likely just skip the step where they convert some of the fructose into glucose, and the amount of sugar will stay pretty much the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Not entirely relevant, but I'm gonna talk a bit of chemistry.

HFCS contains varying ratios depending on the formula, HFCS 42 contains 42% fructose and is what you find mostly processed foods, whereas HFCS 55 contains 55% fructose and is used to sweeten pop. As I recall, it's called "high fructose" because initially it is indeed almost pure fructose. But that fructose is then converted to glucose to make various mixtures.

As such we can't really say "fructose isn't a problem" because if we do that, than HFCS manufacturers will likely just skip the step where they convert some of the fructose into glucose, and the amount of sugar will stay pretty much the same.

Fair. I'd say that naturally-occurring fructose isn't a problem. It's added sugar that is the real issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kalbear said:

Fair. I'd say that naturally-occurring fructose isn't a problem. It's added sugar that is the real issue. 

Yeah, unfortunately a lot of people really don't like bitter things. Which is insane, dark chocolate is 100x better than milk chocolate. So there's a fair bit of research going into alternatives, the most promising as I recall are either left-handed sugars, which we can taste but our bodies don't process, or blocking agents that prevent us from tasting the bitterness so less sugar would be needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TrueMetis said:

Yeah, unfortunately a lot of people really don't like bitter things. Which is insane, dark chocolate is 100x better than milk chocolate. So there's a fair bit of research going into alternatives, the most promising as I recall are either left-handed sugars, which we can taste but our bodies don't process, or blocking agents that prevent us from tasting the bitterness so less sugar would be needed.

I don't think that the answer needs to be that people need to deal with bitterness. Lack of sugar doesn't mean it tastes bitter any more than my steak tastes bitter without ketchup. 

It should be reasonably easy to tax added sugar per gram. Heck, if you really wanted to tax all processed food by its sugar content, added or no. There aren't a whole lot of processed foods which are actually healthy and have sugar in them naturally - the closest you can get is juice, and juice isn't particularly healthy (especially compared to the fruit itself). 

The real issue to me isn't that things like cake and candy are sweet and have sugar in them. It's bizarre things like bread and cheese and pasta and whatnot which add sugars that you don't even think about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think that the answer needs to be that people need to deal with bitterness. Lack of sugar doesn't mean it tastes bitter any more than my steak tastes bitter without ketchup. 

It should be reasonably easy to tax added sugar per gram. Heck, if you really wanted to tax all processed food by its sugar content, added or no. There aren't a whole lot of processed foods which are actually healthy and have sugar in them naturally - the closest you can get is juice, and juice isn't particularly healthy (especially compared to the fruit itself). 

The real issue to me isn't that things like cake and candy are sweet and have sugar in them. It's bizarre things like bread and cheese and pasta and whatnot which add sugars that you don't even think about. 

I would argue that the bolded part is wrong.

https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietary-guidelines-2010 

Check out figure 3-6 in the full report, page 29. About 75% of the added sugar comes from completely predictable sources like soda, energy drinks, sports drinks, desserts, candy and so on. Hidden sugar in regular food is much less of a problem than us simply eating too much of the tasty stuff that we already know is unhealthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really care about this topic, and am kinda just fascinated it's lasted this long.

However, it does make me think about my father.  He was a pretty hard man growing up.  He's realized now why that was wrong and has made amends and I love him.  But one thing he still gets on my or my brother's case about is gaining weight.  My mom gives me tons of shit about smoking, rightfully, but him?  Doesn't care.  The fact I went down from around 175 to 160 the past year?  Gold.  It's the weirdest thing.  He's so reticent to give me shit about anything, but if it is, it's about weight.  When, if you want to list my problems, that's decidedly on the back end.  And he knows that.

Anyway, that's a long way of saying that weight can be a bigger problem than any other addiction for a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't really care about this topic, and am kinda just fascinated it's lasted this long.

However, it does make me think about my father.  He was a pretty hard man growing up.  He's realized now why that was wrong and has made amends and I love him.  But one thing he still gets on my or my brother's case about is gaining weight.  My mom gives me tons of shit about smoking, rightfully, but him?  Doesn't care.  The fact I went down from around 175 to 160 the past year?  Gold.  It's the weirdest thing.  He's so reticent to give me shit about anything, but if it is, it's about weight.  When, if you want to list my problems, that's decidedly on the back end.  And he knows that.

Anyway, that's a long way of saying that weight can be a bigger problem than any other addiction for a person.

Well are obesity-related diseases common on his side? I would think that could possibly be a cause for the high value in weight and indifference towards smoking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Well are obesity-related diseases common on his side? I would think that could possibly be a cause for the high value in weight and indifference towards smoking. 

Lol, this isnt really aimed at you, but this is another part of this issue that annoys me a great deal, the idea that people who stays fit, work out etc do it for health reasons, not because society values and rewards a fit physique. 

Im sure a bunch of people will be quick to assure me they spend those hours at the gym for health reasons only,  and all ill say to that is Good for you and i dont believe you.

Personally, i gym because i like the way muscle look on my body and i run because its good for me. I spend way more time at the gym than at the track..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...