We Can Blame Sugar All We Like – But We're Only Creating More Problems For Ourselves
Replies
-
No, not appealing to me. On a cinnamon bun, sure!0
-
Bloomberg View: In Mexico, a Soda Tax Success Story. This week's Bloomberg has a short write-up on the tax on soda in Mexico. Paraphrasing the article, sugary drinks are the primary driver of obesity, purchases of sugary drinks dropped 12%, obesity is becoming a global epidemic the greatest group helped by the tax are the poor which has also helps lower their need for medical care which is costly. I can see this becoming a more popular idea in the coming years. Last bullet point: Sugary drinks should be eliminated from the federal food stamps program. Food for thought folks.0
-
I go back and forth with regulating food to help people to have a healthy BMI. In my own case, I don't think regulations would have made a difference. I can only blame myself. Maybe not specifically but I knew I was eating a ton calories over what I burned. Just didn't realize just how little I burned.
I wonder if companies should be required to list calories in readable text when advertising food, especially restaurants. Would it help if Pizza Hut had to list the calories?
I don't remember learning about calories in school. Maybe it was covered but I only remember learning about the 5 food groups. Education in k-12 about calories and macros would be a great start. I know I didn't see anything about it come home from our school district.
I don't think people on food stamps should be prohibited from buying soda.0 -
I'm 20 pounds from a healthy BMI. Not sure I'd have a criteria or a marker. And, sin taxes like alcohol, cigs, and eventually sugar are fairly ironic when you think about it. Sugar would be one of epic irony. Cut taxes for farmers to grow a taxable crop. Personally, I think starting down the road of taxing foods is problematic. Then again, bridges collapsing are a problem too.susan100df wrote: »I go back and forth with regulating food to help people to have a healthy BMI. I wonder if companies should be required to l
0 -
susan100df wrote: »I go back and forth with regulating food to help people to have a healthy BMI. In my own case, I don't think regulations would have made a difference. I can only blame myself. Maybe not specifically but I knew I was eating a ton calories over what I burned. Just didn't realize just how little I burned.
I wonder if companies should be required to list calories in readable text when advertising food, especially restaurants. Would it help if Pizza Hut had to list the calories?
I don't remember learning about calories in school. Maybe it was covered but I only remember learning about the 5 food groups. Education in k-12 about calories and macros would be a great start. I know I didn't see anything about it come home from our school district.
I don't think people on food stamps should be prohibited from buying soda.
Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure chain restaurants are being required either now or soon to post calorie information. They already have to in California, with more than 20 restaurants (I think that's the number).
I'm curious to see if the soda tax actually helps Mexico's obesity problem, or if people will get the calories from somewhere else and remain overweight.0 -
susan100df wrote: »I go back and forth with regulating food to help people to have a healthy BMI. In my own case, I don't think regulations would have made a difference. I can only blame myself. Maybe not specifically but I knew I was eating a ton calories over what I burned. Just didn't realize just how little I burned.
I wonder if companies should be required to list calories in readable text when advertising food, especially restaurants. Would it help if Pizza Hut had to list the calories?
I don't remember learning about calories in school. Maybe it was covered but I only remember learning about the 5 food groups. Education in k-12 about calories and macros would be a great start. I know I didn't see anything about it come home from our school district.
I don't think people on food stamps should be prohibited from buying soda.
Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure chain restaurants are being required either now or soon to post calorie information. They already have to in California, with more than 20 restaurants (I think that's the number).
I'm curious to see if the soda tax actually helps Mexico's obesity problem, or if people will get the calories from somewhere else and remain overweight.
I am looking forward to what they find in terms of overall numbers. Kids learn about nutrition in school. They then read and believe the magazines and 'emotion' of good versus bad foods.0 -
susan100df wrote: »While I don't think sugar is the devil, I do know that the foods I overeat have an abundance of sugar. If that ingredient isn't in the food, I have zero interest in overeating it. Thats the same for many people. Discussing is helpful. Being slammed in the forum for wanting to discuss is harmful. Prohibiting the discussion because you don't believe it exists does not help anyone. Just because you don't have the issue, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I could get plenty obese without ever touching sugary treats. Pizza, Mexican food, Chinese food, BBQ, burgers and french fries, etc. I'd much sooner eat 3,000 calories of Mexican food than I would 3,000 calories of cake, pie, donuts or candy bars. Sweets are actually pretty easy for me to control, they're rarely the thing I have interest in overeating.0 -
susan100df wrote: »While I don't think sugar is the devil, I do know that the foods I overeat have an abundance of sugar. If that ingredient isn't in the food, I have zero interest in overeating it. Thats the same for many people. Discussing is helpful. Being slammed in the forum for wanting to discuss is harmful. Prohibiting the discussion because you don't believe it exists does not help anyone. Just because you don't have the issue, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I could get plenty obese without ever touching sugary treats. Pizza, Mexican food, Chinese food, BBQ, burgers and french fries, etc. I'd much sooner eat 3,000 calories of Mexican food than I would 3,000 calories of cake, pie, donuts or candy bars. Sweets are actually pretty easy for me to control, they're rarely the thing I have interest in overeating.
Hmmmmm pizza0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
0 -
susan100df wrote: »I go back and forth with regulating food to help people to have a healthy BMI. In my own case, I don't think regulations would have made a difference. I can only blame myself. Maybe not specifically but I knew I was eating a ton calories over what I burned. Just didn't realize just how little I burned.
I wonder if companies should be required to list calories in readable text when advertising food, especially restaurants. Would it help if Pizza Hut had to list the calories?
I don't remember learning about calories in school. Maybe it was covered but I only remember learning about the 5 food groups. Education in k-12 about calories and macros would be a great start. I know I didn't see anything about it come home from our school district.
I don't think people on food stamps should be prohibited from buying soda.
Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure chain restaurants are being required either now or soon to post calorie information. They already have to in California, with more than 20 restaurants (I think that's the number).
I'm curious to see if the soda tax actually helps Mexico's obesity problem, or if people will get the calories from somewhere else and remain overweight.
You are right.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/ucm248732.htmAs required by statute, FDA’s final rule for nutrition labeling in chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments will provide consumers with clear and consistent nutrition information in a direct and accessible manner for the foods they eat and buy for their families. Posting calories on menus and menu boards and providing other nutrient information in writing in chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments will fill a critical information gap and help consumers make informed and healthful dietary choices.
Covered establishments will list calorie information for standard menu items on menus and menu boards and a succinct statement about suggested daily caloric intake. Other nutrient information—total calories, calories from fat, total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrates, fiber, sugars, and protein—will have to be made available in writing on request.
I think this is good. Not everyone belongs to MFP and is looking their restaurant meals up. I know I've had some restaurant meals thinking they were reasonable only to find out after the fact that I just ate a calorie bomb.
I think about taking it a step further and require calories listed on foods advertised in print and on TV. Knowing the calorie amount definitely encourages me either to skip or to save something for when I have available calories. I'm only aware because I'm counting.
If people can afford it, I think they will buy their soda just like they always did. Cigarettes are 10 bucks a pack here. While most smokers I know have quit, somebody is paying the $10 or the stores wouldn't be selling them.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
because there is nothing wrong with added sugar in the context of an overall diet that hits micro, macro, and calorie targets…..but you don't want to acknowledge that, do you?0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
Even if it provides absolutely nothing (although I disagree as even pure cane sugar supplies energy) in terms of physical nourishment, if it does absolutely no harm to ones overall adherence to their diet, why isn't "just because I like it" good enough? There are a lot of things we do for pure pleasure and there is nothing wrong with that if it does no harm.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
Even if it provides absolutely nothing (although I disagree as even pure cane sugar supplies energy) in terms of physical nourishment, if it does absolutely no harm to ones overall adherence to their diet, why isn't "just because I like it" good enough? There are a lot of things we do for pure pleasure and there is nothing wrong with that if it does no harm.
It's good enough for me. I'm of the opinion that food is something to be enjoyed. I love life, and part of that is loving the food I eat. I don't have the "beep boop" perspective of only eating things that are absolutely essential to my existence.
We all own a lot of things that aren't essential to life. If one applied the same rationale to life in general of "nothing but what I absolutely need", why not live in a cave and walk everywhere you go? Or since many of us live in places where cars are essential, why not the cheapest, most base model you can find with no added options? You don't need a comfortable, nice looking car with a heater, power windows, a radio, etc. to provide transportation. Don't need a nice house either - a small studio apartment with no furniture will provide sufficient shelter and safety. Shelter, food and water are the essentials of life, everything else is superfluous.0 -
Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.0
-
Christine_72 wrote: »Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.
And being a Hawaiian pizza and all, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of that sugar is in the pineapple which is on the pizza.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.
And being a Hawaiian pizza and all, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of that sugar is in the pineapple which is on the pizza.
And the rest from the tomatoes in the sauce.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.
And being a Hawaiian pizza and all, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of that sugar is in the pineapple which is on the pizza.
Pepperoni pizza, just cheese and pepperoni= 23.4g of sugar0 -
susan100df wrote: »While I don't think sugar is the devil, I do know that the foods I overeat have an abundance of sugar. If that ingredient isn't in the food, I have zero interest in overeating it. Thats the same for many people. Discussing is helpful. Being slammed in the forum for wanting to discuss is harmful. Prohibiting the discussion because you don't believe it exists does not help anyone. Just because you don't have the issue, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I could get plenty obese without ever touching sugary treats. Pizza, Mexican food, Chinese food, BBQ, burgers and french fries, etc. I'd much sooner eat 3,000 calories of Mexican food than I would 3,000 calories of cake, pie, donuts or candy bars. Sweets are actually pretty easy for me to control, they're rarely the thing I have interest in overeating.
I only commented because of this post..0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.
And very few trigger foods are cut out of people's diets because they contain carbs and sugar, but most have a lot of fat as well. What exactly is your point?0 -
susan100df wrote: »susan100df wrote: »I go back and forth with regulating food to help people to have a healthy BMI. In my own case, I don't think regulations would have made a difference. I can only blame myself. Maybe not specifically but I knew I was eating a ton calories over what I burned. Just didn't realize just how little I burned.
I wonder if companies should be required to list calories in readable text when advertising food, especially restaurants. Would it help if Pizza Hut had to list the calories?
I don't remember learning about calories in school. Maybe it was covered but I only remember learning about the 5 food groups. Education in k-12 about calories and macros would be a great start. I know I didn't see anything about it come home from our school district.
I don't think people on food stamps should be prohibited from buying soda.
Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure chain restaurants are being required either now or soon to post calorie information. They already have to in California, with more than 20 restaurants (I think that's the number).
I'm curious to see if the soda tax actually helps Mexico's obesity problem, or if people will get the calories from somewhere else and remain overweight.
You are right.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/ucm248732.htmAs required by statute, FDA’s final rule for nutrition labeling in chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments will provide consumers with clear and consistent nutrition information in a direct and accessible manner for the foods they eat and buy for their families. Posting calories on menus and menu boards and providing other nutrient information in writing in chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments will fill a critical information gap and help consumers make informed and healthful dietary choices.
Covered establishments will list calorie information for standard menu items on menus and menu boards and a succinct statement about suggested daily caloric intake. Other nutrient information—total calories, calories from fat, total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrates, fiber, sugars, and protein—will have to be made available in writing on request.
I think this is good. Not everyone belongs to MFP and is looking their restaurant meals up. I know I've had some restaurant meals thinking they were reasonable only to find out after the fact that I just ate a calorie bomb.
I think about taking it a step further and require calories listed on foods advertised in print and on TV. Knowing the calorie amount definitely encourages me either to skip or to save something for when I have available calories. I'm only aware because I'm counting.
If people can afford it, I think they will buy their soda just like they always did. Cigarettes are 10 bucks a pack here. While most smokers I know have quit, somebody is paying the $10 or the stores wouldn't be selling them.
Glad to know I'm not crazy.
Truthfully, though, I'm not sure how much of a difference it actually makes. When I was working at Starbucks, it didn't stop anybody, including myself even though I had a point of reference for how many calories I should eat per day. Without that context (daily caloric requirements), I think it gets skipped. More information is better, though, for the people who care.
I think the same thing about the soda tax, to be honest, but since there was a decent decline in sales, I'm curious.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.
And very few trigger foods are cut out of people's diets because they contain carbs and sugar, but most have a lot of fat as well. What exactly is your point?
See my post above yours. Perhaps some people think that because they don't eat traditionally sweet foods that they aren't consuming sugar. I have nothing against real sugar, was just making a point.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Just because it's savoury doesn't mean there's no sugar in it.. For example, a large Hawaiian pizza which equals 6 smallish slices has 27.6g of sugar. I think one would be hard pressed to find any "junk" food that doesn't contain sugar.
pizza is not junk food it has carbs, protein, and fats….0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
because there is nothing wrong with added sugar in the context of an overall diet that hits micro, macro, and calorie targets…..but you don't want to acknowledge that, do you?
Our perspectives are so different. It does not look like you are sedentary or eating at a deficit or eating more calories than you are burning. For someone eating at a deficit, they are eating 70-90% of their required energy and micronutrients. I think it pretty irresponsible to suggest that deficit eaters replace some already scarce vitamins, minerals and other needed nutrients with nutrient free added sugars. I believe the long term weight loss is helped by stopping food seeking by meeting nutritional needs.
I'm waging this added sugar battle right now in my own diet, it is a very slippery slope.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
because there is nothing wrong with added sugar in the context of an overall diet that hits micro, macro, and calorie targets…..but you don't want to acknowledge that, do you?
Our perspectives are so different. It does not look like you are sedentary or eating at a deficit or eating more calories than you are burning. For someone eating at a deficit, they are eating 70-90% of their required energy and micronutrients. I think it pretty irresponsible to suggest that deficit eaters replace some already scarce vitamins, minerals and other needed nutrients with nutrient free added sugars. I believe the long term weight loss is helped by stopping food seeking by meeting nutritional needs.
I'm waging this added sugar battle right now in my own diet, it is a very slippery slope.
Meh, people need to decide it on their own intake needs. I'm eating at a deficit and eat 2100-2300 calories a day. I had no problem fitting some white chocolate reeces into my calories today and still getting plenty of nutrition.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
because there is nothing wrong with added sugar in the context of an overall diet that hits micro, macro, and calorie targets…..but you don't want to acknowledge that, do you?
Our perspectives are so different. It does not look like you are sedentary or eating at a deficit or eating more calories than you are burning. For someone eating at a deficit, they are eating 70-90% of their required energy and micronutrients. I think it pretty irresponsible to suggest that deficit eaters replace some already scarce vitamins, minerals and other needed nutrients with nutrient free added sugars. I believe the long term weight loss is helped by stopping food seeking by meeting nutritional needs.
I'm waging this added sugar battle right now in my own diet, it is a very slippery slope.
I am currently cutting on 2800 calories. 3400 maintenance. It's super easy to fit refined sugar. I am currently sitting at 2100 and full with less than 2 hours till bed.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
because there is nothing wrong with added sugar in the context of an overall diet that hits micro, macro, and calorie targets…..but you don't want to acknowledge that, do you?
Our perspectives are so different. It does not look like you are sedentary or eating at a deficit or eating more calories than you are burning. For someone eating at a deficit, they are eating 70-90% of their required energy and micronutrients. I think it pretty irresponsible to suggest that deficit eaters replace some already scarce vitamins, minerals and other needed nutrients with nutrient free added sugars. I believe the long term weight loss is helped by stopping food seeking by meeting nutritional needs.
I'm waging this added sugar battle right now in my own diet, it is a very slippery slope.
Meh, people need to decide it on their own intake needs. I'm eating at a deficit and eat 2100-2300 calories a day. I had no problem fitting some white chocolate reeces into my calories today and still getting plenty of nutrition._Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
because there is nothing wrong with added sugar in the context of an overall diet that hits micro, macro, and calorie targets…..but you don't want to acknowledge that, do you?
Our perspectives are so different. It does not look like you are sedentary or eating at a deficit or eating more calories than you are burning. For someone eating at a deficit, they are eating 70-90% of their required energy and micronutrients. I think it pretty irresponsible to suggest that deficit eaters replace some already scarce vitamins, minerals and other needed nutrients with nutrient free added sugars. I believe the long term weight loss is helped by stopping food seeking by meeting nutritional needs.
I'm waging this added sugar battle right now in my own diet, it is a very slippery slope.
I am currently cutting on 2800 calories. 3400 maintenance. It's super easy to fit refined sugar. I am currently sitting at 2100 and full with less than 2 hours till bed.
So what do you think about 1200 calories a day? I don't think added sugars have a place there, but here on mfp people are told to not worry about added without respect to total calories available. I think that is garbage advice.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
because there is nothing wrong with added sugar in the context of an overall diet that hits micro, macro, and calorie targets…..but you don't want to acknowledge that, do you?
Our perspectives are so different. It does not look like you are sedentary or eating at a deficit or eating more calories than you are burning. For someone eating at a deficit, they are eating 70-90% of their required energy and micronutrients. I think it pretty irresponsible to suggest that deficit eaters replace some already scarce vitamins, minerals and other needed nutrients with nutrient free added sugars. I believe the long term weight loss is helped by stopping food seeking by meeting nutritional needs.
I'm waging this added sugar battle right now in my own diet, it is a very slippery slope.
Meh, people need to decide it on their own intake needs. I'm eating at a deficit and eat 2100-2300 calories a day. I had no problem fitting some white chocolate reeces into my calories today and still getting plenty of nutrition._Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »What bad thing will happen if added/excess sugar is removed from the modern diet? Answer...nothing.
Nothing bad will happen if people stop eating sugary cereals, or candy. Still plenty of sugars in natural foods.
Comparing it with the fat-scare is unfair. Humans actually NEED fat.
Low fat never said no fat (there's naturally-occurring fat in whole foods too, like nuts, meat (including fatty fish), avocado, olives) -- you don't need to get fat from sweets or packaged foods or fast food, etc., or even lots of sat fat from dairy or fattier cuts of meat to live. In fact, we are still recommended to limit those things. So it's the same.
And of course we do need sugar to live -- it's just that it's so incredibly important our bodies can create it from other things. That there are people who worry about whether they should reduce or limit their consumption of fruits and even vegetables because "sugar" shows that we've gone overboard, as usual, since it's easier to blame a macro than learn to eat in a sensible way that focuses on nutrient dense foods. Well, not easier, but apparently sexier -- there's more money to be made promoting this line. Apparently we are now doing the reverse of the Snackwell's thing -- making "no sugar" products that have extra fat and sodium and calories. People want a magic bullet.
As for your question, I am in favor of people eating fewer foods with lots of sugar added. I don't eat sugary cereal or candy myself (well, I don't like either), and I eat the foods with added sugar that I like (such as ice cream) in moderation. But wanting those foods removed from the food supply seems extreme. Why should they be, when many enjoy them and the correct answer is not to eat stupidly.
No one said that but you.
On the other side, let's not pretend that added sugar is some kind of required or necessary nutrient. Added sugar is pretty much something that we eat for fun, not nutritional needs. It is completely expendable with zero negative effects.
I eat alligator for fun....and the wooden stick. What food do you eat and think 'I need the nutrient specific to this food item'? I get the idea it isn't necessary but I enjoy it and need energy. If we outlawed soda for example, could you imagine the bottling companies believing people would buy bottled water? Oh wait.
Most of what I chose to eat is chosen for its contribution to micronutrients that I have a hard time getting enough of. I'm not perfect, but am trying to get nutrients from food itself. It takes work to find affordable, nutritious, tasty food that fulfills daily needs. I don't understand promoting added sugar as food - it promotes overeating and/or 'under-nutritioning'.
because there is nothing wrong with added sugar in the context of an overall diet that hits micro, macro, and calorie targets…..but you don't want to acknowledge that, do you?
Our perspectives are so different. It does not look like you are sedentary or eating at a deficit or eating more calories than you are burning. For someone eating at a deficit, they are eating 70-90% of their required energy and micronutrients. I think it pretty irresponsible to suggest that deficit eaters replace some already scarce vitamins, minerals and other needed nutrients with nutrient free added sugars. I believe the long term weight loss is helped by stopping food seeking by meeting nutritional needs.
I'm waging this added sugar battle right now in my own diet, it is a very slippery slope.
I am currently cutting on 2800 calories. 3400 maintenance. It's super easy to fit refined sugar. I am currently sitting at 2100 and full with less than 2 hours till bed.
So what do you think about 1200 calories a day? I don't think added sugars have a place there, but here on mfp people are told to not worry about added without respect to total calories available. I think that is garbage advice.
if you can fit it into your 1200 calories and hit your targets then there is nothing wrong with it…
if you are eating adding sugar and neglecting nutrition, then yes that is an issue. However, that is not sugars fault that is said persons dietary choices fault...0 -
Speaking in reference to the sugar tax mentioned above. I live in/near the Boulder, Colorado area... Boulder county has a sugar tax and has for several years at least (2010, apparently). It currently applies to anything manufactured and packaged that contains sugar and no flour (this has changed since the original bill which was much more relaxed than current legislation seems to be). This is commonly referred to in Boulder as "The Fat Tax"
I don't know statistics on whether it has helped obesity since Boulder in an incredibly lean city in general but that seems to have more to do with the average per capita income in the area being extremely high and the people being very quick to buy into the current woo fad of the moment as opposed to other factors. Additionally with the high altitudes in the area, there are many, many runners, marathoners, triathletes, etc who come to the area to live or stay for extended periods of time in order to train in the lower oxygen environment.
I really have no personal stance on added sugars as that has never really been one of my trouble foods post childhood, just thought it an interesting addition to the conversation since up-thread many were talking about Mexico's newish tax.
It's been very lucrative for the county and has spurred other changes such as all local school districts removing soda machines from schools (they replaced them with equally sugar laden fruit juice, so no real net gain there, but it's not an entirely new concept.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2010A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/8D79982E799858E7872576A80026BD6C?Open&file=1191_ren.pdf
*edited to clarify some statements.0 -
susan100df wrote: »susan100df wrote: »I go back and forth with regulating food to help people to have a healthy BMI. In my own case, I don't think regulations would have made a difference. I can only blame myself. Maybe not specifically but I knew I was eating a ton calories over what I burned. Just didn't realize just how little I burned.
I wonder if companies should be required to list calories in readable text when advertising food, especially restaurants. Would it help if Pizza Hut had to list the calories?
I don't remember learning about calories in school. Maybe it was covered but I only remember learning about the 5 food groups. Education in k-12 about calories and macros would be a great start. I know I didn't see anything about it come home from our school district.
I don't think people on food stamps should be prohibited from buying soda.
Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure chain restaurants are being required either now or soon to post calorie information. They already have to in California, with more than 20 restaurants (I think that's the number).
I'm curious to see if the soda tax actually helps Mexico's obesity problem, or if people will get the calories from somewhere else and remain overweight.
You are right.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/ucm248732.htmAs required by statute, FDA’s final rule for nutrition labeling in chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments will provide consumers with clear and consistent nutrition information in a direct and accessible manner for the foods they eat and buy for their families. Posting calories on menus and menu boards and providing other nutrient information in writing in chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments will fill a critical information gap and help consumers make informed and healthful dietary choices.
Covered establishments will list calorie information for standard menu items on menus and menu boards and a succinct statement about suggested daily caloric intake. Other nutrient information—total calories, calories from fat, total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrates, fiber, sugars, and protein—will have to be made available in writing on request.
I think this is good. Not everyone belongs to MFP and is looking their restaurant meals up. I know I've had some restaurant meals thinking they were reasonable only to find out after the fact that I just ate a calorie bomb.
I think about taking it a step further and require calories listed on foods advertised in print and on TV. Knowing the calorie amount definitely encourages me either to skip or to save something for when I have available calories. I'm only aware because I'm counting.
If people can afford it, I think they will buy their soda just like they always did. Cigarettes are 10 bucks a pack here. While most smokers I know have quit, somebody is paying the $10 or the stores wouldn't be selling them.
To the bolded, the ironic thing is, most of the products advertised in print and on TV are "processed" or "convenience" foods and they all would have calorie counts on them, which you're saying (and I agree) would help people control their intake, yet they are widely panned as being bad for people because processed = chemicals = bad.
While I do agree that having more information about how many calories are in foods is helpful to a consumer, without the frame of reference of how many calories an individual burns, their TDEE, the calorie content info won't provide a complete picture.
0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »Speaking in reference to the sugar tax mentioned above. I live in/near the Boulder, Colorado area... Boulder county has a sugar tax and has for several years at least (2010, apparently). It currently applies to anything manufactured and packaged that contains sugar and no flour (this has changed since the original bill which was much more relaxed than current legislation seems to be). This is commonly referred to in Boulder as "The Fat Tax"
I don't know statistics on whether it has helped obesity since Boulder in an incredibly lean city in general but that seems to have more to do with the average per capita income in the area being extremely high and the people being very quick to buy into the current woo fad of the moment as opposed to other factors. Additionally with the high altitudes in the area, there are many, many runners, marathoners, triathletes, etc who come to the area to live or stay for extended periods of time in order to train in the lower oxygen environment.
I really have no personal stance on added sugars as that has never really been one of my trouble foods post childhood, just thought it an interesting addition to the conversation since up-thread many were talking about Mexico's newish tax.
It's been very lucrative for the county and has spurred other changes such as all local school districts removing soda machines from schools (they replaced them with equally sugar laden fruit juice, so no real net gain there, but it's not an entirely new concept.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2010A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/8D79982E799858E7872576A80026BD6C?Open&file=1191_ren.pdf
*edited to clarify some statements.
Interesting. I didn't know that! Is it built into the price or added at the end like sales tax?
There have been some regulations in California concerning the choice of beverage in kids' fast food meals, but like you're saying about the Boulder area, it's been in places that tend to already be into fitness and named diets.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions