Should sugar be controlled like tobacco and alcohol
Options
Replies
-
In a word, no.
Seriously, I work in healthcare and our bariatric surgeons don't advocate this.
right, because surgeons are ideally placed to comment on public policy
In this case, yes. There are batterires of physical and psych testing done alongside attempts at traditional weight loss methods closely supervised by these surgeons and their clinical staff before the decision for surgery is made. Most insurance doesn't pay for it and they do a fair amount of charity care. If it were as simple as restricting access to sugar, they would do it and practice medicine that pays under today's reimbursement rules. If they didn't care about obese patients, they would do more amputations of diabetic gangrene and less lap band surgery in an effort to prevent it.0 -
You're great parents. Not everyone has your level of information/access. The schools can and should be a back up system of good information. It benefits everyone (pragmatically speaking) if the schools educate/model good sense nutrition.Disclaimer: I don't eat foods with added sugar. I don't eat anything with HFCS.
NO. Sugar should not be controlled. Labeling should be improved. Folks should have access to information and then folks should make their own decisions.
(and schools should offer healthy foods)
Two thoughts on this:
(1) The current labeling is fine. I am very particular about when I eat added sugar and when I don't and am able to control that quite well. So when I eat an Oreo I know that I'm getting sugar and HFCS, and I don't care because the calories are worth it. When I eat Greek yogurt, I don't need added sugar and am happy not to get it.
(2) School lunches could be improved. I would love to see salads and fresh vegetables available at my daughter's elementary school. She has a fruit choice but the veggies are a bit questionable to non-existant (green beans but not much else and green beans are hardly the best choice) and the proteins are marginal. That said, she gets plenty of what she needs at home. I do feel for the kids who don't have more nutrition training at home though, and I would love to see the schools push to become "models" of healthy eating.
That said, it doesn't get me worked up. The responsibility for my kids' health falls to my wife and me. Period.
I'm a pragmatist.
Thank you. Please note my statement about the schools becoming "models" of healthy eating though. To do that though, the education about nutrition needs to improve, and we're not there yet even among otherwise educated people. Food is food. It's the mix of foods and in what volumes that really matters. Well that, and exercise. it's complicated and not easily broken down into something like "Five a Day." The problem is that as we improve our understanding of nutrition we are always turning around and having to deprogram the learning from the prior mistakes. Think about all the low fat crap that we're now having to unteach (not a word but I'm going with it) to a couple of generations.0 -
agreed
You're great parents. Not everyone has your level of information/access. The schools can and should be a back up system of good information. It benefits everyone (pragmatically speaking) if the schools educate/model good sense nutrition.Disclaimer: I don't eat foods with added sugar. I don't eat anything with HFCS.
NO. Sugar should not be controlled. Labeling should be improved. Folks should have access to information and then folks should make their own decisions.
(and schools should offer healthy foods)
Two thoughts on this:
(1) The current labeling is fine. I am very particular about when I eat added sugar and when I don't and am able to control that quite well. So when I eat an Oreo I know that I'm getting sugar and HFCS, and I don't care because the calories are worth it. When I eat Greek yogurt, I don't need added sugar and am happy not to get it.
(2) School lunches could be improved. I would love to see salads and fresh vegetables available at my daughter's elementary school. She has a fruit choice but the veggies are a bit questionable to non-existant (green beans but not much else and green beans are hardly the best choice) and the proteins are marginal. That said, she gets plenty of what she needs at home. I do feel for the kids who don't have more nutrition training at home though, and I would love to see the schools push to become "models" of healthy eating.
That said, it doesn't get me worked up. The responsibility for my kids' health falls to my wife and me. Period.
I'm a pragmatist.
Thank you. Please note my statement about the schools becoming "models" of healthy eating though. To do that though, the education about nutrition needs to improve, and we're not there yet even among otherwise educated people. Food is food. It's the mix of foods and in what volumes that really matters. Well that, and exercise. it's complicated and not easily broken down into something like "Five a Day." The problem is that as we improve our understanding of nutrition we are always turning around and having to deprogram the learning from the prior mistakes. Think about all the low fat crap that we're now having to unteach (not a word but I'm going with it) to a couple of generations.0 -
In a word, no.
Seriously, I work in healthcare and our bariatric surgeons don't advocate this.
right, because surgeons are ideally placed to comment on public policy
In this case, yes. There are batterires of physical and psych testing done alongside attempts at traditional weight loss methods closely supervised by these surgeons and their clinical staff before the decision for surgery is made. Most insurance doesn't pay for it and they do a fair amount of charity care. If it were as simple as restricting access to sugar, they would do it and practice medicine that pays under today's reimbursement rules. If they didn't care about obese patients, they would do more amputations of diabetic gangrene and less lap band surgery in an effort to prevent it.
They sound like wonderfully competent and caring surgeons.0 -
If caffeine isn't regulated then why should sugar?0
-
quickly, bc effed if i'm going to spend a whack of time discussing this, with people who utterly lack a sociological imagination:
- yeah you can get low-sugar sauce; yeah i can read a label (too) -- many are too vague to be useful to most people; there is problem around an assymetry of information and lack of education
- disagree that having $ = greater moral right to defining social goods, rights & responsibilities (what is this, 1500?)
- breaking your arm roller blading =/= decades of care for chronic issues on the scale of prevalence (& cost) currently evident in western societies
outie
Dude-- you're actually resorting to personal attacks about other people's perceptions as a justification for why you no longer need to make valid, coherent arguments or complete sentences.
Now I give up.
Dude, I worded it in an abrasive way, it's true, but it's what I have found to be true. Libertarians appear to hold a view of human nature that is at odds with the entirety of social science, much of what's emerging from neuroscience, and what can be known of metaphysics, believing the contents of human thought are transparent to consciousness, that they are in perfect control of every thought and action, that they are, as someone else said, islands; that might is right, every time. It's a view that's at once naive, idealistic, and cruel. It offends me on both epistemological and moral grounds. I admit to losing it a bit in this kind of discussion (& in this context), hence outie. I believe profoundly that I am my brother's keeper.0 -
quickly, bc effed if i'm going to spend a whack of time discussing this, with people who utterly lack a sociological imagination:
- yeah you can get low-sugar sauce; yeah i can read a label (too) -- many are too vague to be useful to most people; there is problem around an assymetry of information and lack of education
- disagree that having $ = greater moral right to defining social goods, rights & responsibilities (what is this, 1500?)
- breaking your arm roller blading =/= decades of care for chronic issues on the scale of prevalence (& cost) currently evident in western societies
outie
Dude-- you're actually resorting to personal attacks about other people's perceptions as a justification for why you no longer need to make valid, coherent arguments or complete sentences.
Now I give up.
Dude, I worded it in an abrasive way, it's true, but it's what I have found to be true. Libertarians appear to hold a view of human nature that is at odds with the entirety of social science, much of what's emerging from neuroscience, and what can be known of metaphysics, believing the contents of human thought are transparent to consciousness, that they are in perfect control of every thought and action, that they are, as someone else said, islands; that might is right, every time. It's a view that's at once naive, idealistic, and cruel. It offends me on both epistemological and moral grounds. I admit to losing it a bit in this kind of discussion (& in this context), hence outie. I believe profoundly that I am my brother's keeper.
So, to put it simply, rather than post why you think people are too stupid to pick out food you are going to call the person disagreeing with you too stupid to "waste" a good argument on. You're hurting your side more than helping it.
Personally, were I you, I'd explain exactly why I thought sugar was the problem for the obesity rate in whatever country you're in, then why I thought the obese population wasn't capable of learning how to eat "healthier." Then explain why the non-obese majority should have their freedom restricted to help save a smaller minority from themselves.
After that you can deal with arguments that the government just doesn't wave a magical law wand and fix problems, they have processes and expenses that have to be justified.
Or, y'know, you could assume people are capable of learning.0 -
quickly, bc effed if i'm going to spend a whack of time discussing this, with people who utterly lack a sociological imagination:
- yeah you can get low-sugar sauce; yeah i can read a label (too) -- many are too vague to be useful to most people; there is problem around an assymetry of information and lack of education
- disagree that having $ = greater moral right to defining social goods, rights & responsibilities (what is this, 1500?)
- breaking your arm roller blading =/= decades of care for chronic issues on the scale of prevalence (& cost) currently evident in western societies
outie
Dude-- you're actually resorting to personal attacks about other people's perceptions as a justification for why you no longer need to make valid, coherent arguments or complete sentences.
Now I give up.
Dude, I worded it in an abrasive way, it's true, but it's what I have found to be true. Libertarians appear to hold a view of human nature that is at odds with the entirety of social science, much of what's emerging from neuroscience, and what can be known of metaphysics, believing the contents of human thought are transparent to consciousness, that they are in perfect control of every thought and action, that they are, as someone else said, islands; that might is right, every time. It's a view that's at once naive, idealistic, and cruel. It offends me on both epistemological and moral grounds. I admit to losing it a bit in this kind of discussion (& in this context), hence outie. I believe profoundly that I am my brother's keeper.
So, to put it simply, rather than post why you think people are too stupid to pick out food you are going to call the person disagreeing with you too stupid to "waste" a good argument on. You're hurting your side more than helping it.
Personally, were I you, I'd explain exactly why I thought sugar was the problem for the obesity rate in whatever country you're in, then why I thought the obese population wasn't capable of learning how to eat "healthier." Then explain why the non-obese majority should have their freedom restricted to help save a smaller minority from themselves.
After that you can deal with arguments that the government just doesn't wave a magical law wand and fix problems, they have processes and expenses that have to be justified.
Or, y'know, you could assume people are capable of learning.
I hardly think you're the one to offer lessons on being snotty.0 -
quickly, bc effed if i'm going to spend a whack of time discussing this, with people who utterly lack a sociological imagination:
- yeah you can get low-sugar sauce; yeah i can read a label (too) -- many are too vague to be useful to most people; there is problem around an assymetry of information and lack of education
- disagree that having $ = greater moral right to defining social goods, rights & responsibilities (what is this, 1500?)
- breaking your arm roller blading =/= decades of care for chronic issues on the scale of prevalence (& cost) currently evident in western societies
outie
Dude-- you're actually resorting to personal attacks about other people's perceptions as a justification for why you no longer need to make valid, coherent arguments or complete sentences.
Now I give up.
Dude, I worded it in an abrasive way, it's true, but it's what I have found to be true. Libertarians appear to hold a view of human nature that is at odds with the entirety of social science, much of what's emerging from neuroscience, and what can be known of metaphysics, believing the contents of human thought are transparent to consciousness, that they are in perfect control of every thought and action, that they are, as someone else said, islands; that might is right, every time. It's a view that's at once naive, idealistic, and cruel. It offends me on both epistemological and moral grounds. I admit to losing it a bit in this kind of discussion (& in this context), hence outie. I believe profoundly that I am my brother's keeper.
So, to put it simply, rather than post why you think people are too stupid to pick out food you are going to call the person disagreeing with you too stupid to "waste" a good argument on. You're hurting your side more than helping it.
Personally, were I you, I'd explain exactly why I thought sugar was the problem for the obesity rate in whatever country you're in, then why I thought the obese population wasn't capable of learning how to eat "healthier." Then explain why the non-obese majority should have their freedom restricted to help save a smaller minority from themselves.
After that you can deal with arguments that the government just doesn't wave a magical law wand and fix problems, they have processes and expenses that have to be justified.
Or, y'know, you could assume people are capable of learning.
I hardly think you're the one to offer lessons on being snotty.
I was actually was being very serious. I thought that approach was a million times better than the "I'm taking my ball and going home" argument.0 -
I think the majority have been using this supplement lately...There should be a logic question that must be answered before every forum post.
This is brilliant. I think it'd cut down on the forum traffic by at least 50% though.
I think you vastly overestimate the intelligence of the general population.
watch it I'm sure you will enjoy it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9pD_UK6vGU
ETA: OK for a looooonng time.
^^^^^^All this & bahahahah!!!0 -
Because regulating, taxing, age limits, bans and outlawing have been so effective with alcohol, Tabaco , illegal drugs and underage drinking? I can see it now, sugar cartels sprouting up, run by middle aged women with twinkie obsessions.
I'm in! :drinker:0 -
quickly, bc effed if i'm going to spend a whack of time discussing this, with people who utterly lack a sociological imagination:
- yeah you can get low-sugar sauce; yeah i can read a label (too) -- many are too vague to be useful to most people; there is problem around an assymetry of information and lack of education
- disagree that having $ = greater moral right to defining social goods, rights & responsibilities (what is this, 1500?)
- breaking your arm roller blading =/= decades of care for chronic issues on the scale of prevalence (& cost) currently evident in western societies
outie
Dude-- you're actually resorting to personal attacks about other people's perceptions as a justification for why you no longer need to make valid, coherent arguments or complete sentences.
Now I give up.
Dude, I worded it in an abrasive way, it's true, but it's what I have found to be true. Libertarians appear to hold a view of human nature that is at odds with the entirety of social science, much of what's emerging from neuroscience, and what can be known of metaphysics, believing the contents of human thought are transparent to consciousness, that they are in perfect control of every thought and action, that they are, as someone else said, islands; that might is right, every time. It's a view that's at once naive, idealistic, and cruel. It offends me on both epistemological and moral grounds. I admit to losing it a bit in this kind of discussion (& in this context), hence outie. I believe profoundly that I am my brother's keeper.
So, to put it simply, rather than post why you think people are too stupid to pick out food you are going to call the person disagreeing with you too stupid to "waste" a good argument on. You're hurting your side more than helping it.
Personally, were I you, I'd explain exactly why I thought sugar was the problem for the obesity rate in whatever country you're in, then why I thought the obese population wasn't capable of learning how to eat "healthier." Then explain why the non-obese majority should have their freedom restricted to help save a smaller minority from themselves.
After that you can deal with arguments that the government just doesn't wave a magical law wand and fix problems, they have processes and expenses that have to be justified.
Or, y'know, you could assume people are capable of learning.
I hardly think you're the one to offer lessons on being snotty.
I was actually was being very serious. I thought that approach was a million times better than the "I'm taking my ball and going home" argument.
i wasn't trying to argue, was just venting spleen. I think I indicated that I wasn't arguing. I don't want to argue with you about how to argue. I am taking my ball and going home.0 -
According to the Action on Sugar group and Simon Capewell, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology at the University of Liverpool. “Sugar is the new tobacco”
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/sugar-is-the-new-tobacco-cuts-to-amounts-hidden-in-food-could-halt-obesity-epidemic-doctors-claim-9047785.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131209204040.htm0 -
oh FCS. Like this thread wasn't bad enough the first time.0
-
After watching several documentaries about processed food and sugar, I believe that all supermarkets should offer a variety of AFFORDABLE organic foods. At Walmart, I noticed the organic canned chicken was several dollars more than the non-organic. To answer your question-- IF nutritionists are right on sugar being like heroine then YES they should regulate it to some extent. Whose idea was it to put sugar in milk??? Yes you can check the nutrition label. On Netflix, there are several documentaries (Food Matters & Hungry for Change) that cover this subject, but I had to log on online to search for them as they were not on my Roku until I added them to my watch list.0
-
After watching several documentaries about processed food and sugar, I believe that all supermarkets should offer a variety of AFFORDABLE organic foods. At Walmart, I noticed the organic canned chicken was several dollars more than the non-organic. To answer your question-- IF nutritionists are right on sugar being like heroine then YES they should regulate it to some extent. Whose idea was it to put sugar in milk??? Yes you can check the nutrition label. On Netflix, there are several documentaries (Food Matters & Hungry for Change) that cover this subject, but I had to log on online to search for them as they were not on my Roku until I added them to my watch list.
You can still buy processed foods full of sugar that are labeled 'organic'-alls that means is the sugar in these items are organically grown. It's still sugar :smokin: And chicken is chicken. Organic chicken is not nutritionally superior to conventionally raised chicken. It has the same calories and the same macros. Save yourself the couple bucks and buy the regular stuff (though why'd you want to buy canned chicken is beyond me).
As for milk, um you do realize that the sugar (lactose), in milk is naturally occurring and is not in fact, added? Perhaps spending less time watching 'documentaries' and more time learning about actual nutrition would be beneficial for you. Just a thought
0 -
I would love to learn about nutrition. One speaker in the documentary had a Masters in Nutrition, the other a Doctorate in Nutrition. So, where do I go for nutritional education that is not "marketed" etc.0
-
oh FCS. Like this thread wasn't bad enough the first time.
Maybe this time it will earn a proper lock?0 -
20 years from now drinking soft drinks will be viewed as smoking is today.0
-
20 years from now drinking soft drinks will be viewed as smoking is today.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions