'is sugar the next tobacco?'

Post Reply New Topic

It is also your right to know the damaging effects sugar has on your body. The govt, media, commercialism doesn't tell you that because they are making money off of you. It's a consequence to us all because most people are oblivious and think it's harmless. It will, and does, negatively affect us in so many different ways. We pay taxes and our money goes towards medical care for, not only ourselves, but of others.

I've never seen a research paper from the NIH that suggests sugar is harmless. What is the government supposed to do, force people to read the research which is public and easily accessed? People have to be expected to take on at least some responsibility for their actions, and being willfully ignorant isn't something the governnment can fix anyway.

So how do we force people who are sick and overworked to give up what little bit of life isn't miserable for them? Being poor and desperate isn't going to be much better healthy.

I love where you're coming from on this and I hope you try to convince those around you to educate themselves and make better choices but I don't think our government is there for the purpose of holding our hands through every action. I think there are bigger problems they need to make worse before they can really f**k this one up further.

And big ups to Michelle Obama for taking on the the cause she has, even if her husband kills babies in drone strikes.

All I ask is to have the right to shop at a grocery store without worrying about what chemical has been added to my peas.
(I bolded your error because I found it quite ironic.)

I agree that people should educate themselves about nutrition. I don't always make the best choices, but since they're informed choices, I'm sure I don't in the long run do as much harm to myself through my choices as someone who really doesn't bother to know what's in the food they eat.

I was lucky to have a young, idealistic teacher in home economics in high school one year, who rebelled against the standard curriculum, helped us explore natural foods, vegetarianism, lightly steamed instead of boiled to death veggies, whole grain breads, and many other things. She was not hired back the next year - the rest of the staff looked down on her, considered her a hippy. But I learned more from her than from almost any other teacher I ever had, and she instilled in me a lifelong interest in nutrition and questioning where my food comes from.

Last edited by BlueAbyss on 12 Jan 2013, 12:19 am, edited 2 times in total.

Would you agree with getting rid of the corn subsidies that the government pays to farmers - which is money that could be spent on schools, roads, etc - which is largely what allows high fructose corn syrup to be so cheap, and thus in so much?

http://sciencefriday.com/blogs/01/10/20 ... audience=4

So what are you saying, that you only think health care should be subsidized for people who are skinny, or who never make wrong food choices? Are you not planning to get old eventually, and consequently need a lot more healthcare than you do now? Being healthy and living longer doesn't mean there isn't some point at which one's health deteriorates. Aside from that, a lot of weight problems are psychological, some are caused by side-effects of prescribed drugs, by stress, or by pre-existing health problems. Undiagnosed food allergies can cause food cravings that cause one to be overweight. In fact there are so many reasons one can be overweight that medicine has trouble keeping up with them all, and yet you want to hold each person responsible to remain completely healthy?

By the way, this quote from your linked article:Shows that it's exaggerated in order to make the author's point. Funny how in all the times I've ridden a bus, I've never seen more than half of the people on it take up two seats. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen one person take up two seats, and not more than two or three on a full bus who appeared significantly overweight.

Yes, some people make wrong food choices, but for most of us it doesn't make that much of a difference. We have the bodies we're born with, we're exposed to the stresses of society, time takes its toll. Some have economic difficulties that make the right choices less available. And lest you've forgotten, EVERYONE is going to die at some point, if not by accident then by an illness.

Good luck to you remaining healthy until the day you die. I hope if you do develop some health problem, no one comes along and tells you that it's your own fault. That would be cruel.

P.S. If my post seems harsh, I apologize, but I grew up with an adopted sister who had health problems from the moment she was born, and consequent weight control issues all her life. She paid more attention to eating healthy than anyone I've ever known, and yet she always had weight problems, got bullied for it, and eventually developed diabetes. When I hear anyone mocked or put down for weight issues, having known and loved her, I just get livid. If I had ever heard someone say that they didn't want her health care subsidized because she must have made the wrong food choices, I would have wanted to clobber them. You don't treat people that way!

^^^

I don't think your post is harsh. I think it is a silly over reaction.

The only point I was EVER making in this thread is that WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER AND WE HAVE MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS TO ONE ANOTHER TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND DO THE BEST WE CAN NOT TO SQUANDER COMMON RESOURCES.

That's it.

GoonSquad, I'm sorry if I took your post the wrong way. It is obviously an emotional subject for me.

No problem. It's an emotional issue for a lot of people.

I'm absolutely not about persecuting poor people or people with health issues. It's actually quite the opposite. I think society, especially a society with as much surplus wealth as ours, has an obligation to help those in need.

I guess I get a bit "emotional" when I see people claim they should have the freedom to do anything they choose regardless of the problems they cause for the whole. These people make it harder on everybody. It makes my blood boil to hear them style themselves as champions of personal freedom. They're not. They're just inconsiderate and selfish. And they end up siphoning off resources that should go to those that are truly in need.

BlueAbyss, food allergies and things like hypothyroidism account for a tiny, tiny fraction of those who are overweight. Psychological issues might contribute a bit more, but in our current culture are far more likely to be an effect of not getting enough exercise than a cause of weight gain (it can be a self-propagating loop, but the way to break the cycle is to get out for a walk even when you don't want to).

Americans, as a whole, are fatter than we were 60 years ago. Watch a news reel that includes images of crowds on the street from the 50's, and it's startling how thin everyone is.

We have not changed genetically in that time period. Our environment, and especially our food supply, has.

I'm certain that most people care more about their weight than you give them credit for. Few people decide defiantly "I'm going to be fat. So what?" There's usually an underlying something going on, even if they're not aware of it themselves.

I'm not saying that being fat is a conscious decision, quite the opposite. I'm saying that our current food system sabotages our physiology in a way that makes us prone to fatness, unless we actively take steps to avoid it. Fatness is the default state, whereas 60 years ago thinness ('normal' weight, but thin by modern standards) was.

I agree the food supply has hidden dangers. But 50 years ago most people in the US, my family included, ate a lot of red meat and starches, and a lot less fresh produce. A lot of the vegetables we ate were canned, and my mom cooked with bacon grease! The knowledge about nutrition just wasn't there. I was a skinny kid. But we didn't have computers, or watch TV during daylight hours. We played outside, sometimes until well after dark. So I can see how in some ways we're better off now, while in other ways worse off.

I do think it's pretty scary that a whole generation are now adults who were given juice boxes with high fructose corn syrup the entire time they were children. I drank a lot of soda as a kid, but nothing like what those kids drank in the form of "healthy" juice. I knew all along that pop wasn't good for me or my teeth. I was never told, drink this, it's good for you.

Today lying in advertising has been taken to new heights.

Last edited by BlueAbyss on 13 Jan 2013, 7:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

no person has to eat any fatting food. no one force anyone to go to mcdonalds. I had 10 bucks once and instead of buying 3 bags of chips, I bought a bag of chicken. Instead of mcdonalds, go to subway. That the problem with liberals.
you guys are like ''people should be free to sleep with whoever they want'' but yet the same liberal want to ban ''super size sodas'',that stupid, if you don't like super size soda then don't buy one. you want the government to tell us what to eat?
people should make their own decision.

Healthy fats is what supports the brain function and nervous system. Subway? Full of nitrates, colouring, and artificial preservatives/flavouring. I would not suggest Subway as a healthy alternative - and a good example of how uninformed the general public is. The problem is, there are so many conflicting truths about what is healthy.

When I was in high school's cooking class, the teacher talked about food labels - the calories and what it meant. Never did she address the ingredients and it's the ingredients that needs to be taught.