NYC Plans Broad Pop Ban

[Lousluggage]

It will be interesting to see down the line whether a single NY resident loses a single pound over this silly ban. Next up is to regulate the fat content and amount of meat on pastrami sandwiches at Katz's. Because clearly when someone goes in and orders one, they have the expectation that it's healthy. LOL

My guess is it won't have an effect on weight loss... I'm exposed to a lot of obesity/metabolism studies at work and it seems the more we learn, the less we understand about the causes. It appears that it's a lot more complex than calories in/calories out. Making things even more complicated is that it appears that often people who drink diet sodas actually often gain more weight than those who drink regular ones.

I'd love to see a return to smaller sizes, as a 6 oz cup of coffee was always perfect for me. And I'd support posting calorie counts of the different sizes of beverages so that people can be reminded of that. I don't support bans like this though.

[smr-nj]

Mike has a Napoleon complex. He wants to eventually rule the world.

[Melody]

I'd love to see a return to smaller sizes, as a 6 oz cup of coffee was always perfect for me. And I'd support posting calorie counts of the different sizes of beverages so that people can be reminded of that. I don't support bans like this though.

Have you seen the new packaging for soft drinks? Tiny cans, about the size and diameter of a V8 can. I wouldn't imagine that they are more than 6 oz. Target had them last week.

Funny you mention the coffee. I drink it all day, but always from a vintage 6 oz diner mug. (The really heavy ones.) I don't know why I love that little mug so much, but I do.

[PuNk42AE]

Those Coke/Pepsi slim can's are 8 ounces I believe

[PuNk42AE]

Nevermind, actually the Shorty's are 8 ounces, and Thins are 7.5, like they need both of them.

[Joe Gahona]

I worked in NYC for a couple of years. In my experience, I think that the air, the vile smell, and the germ ridden streets and public transit is way more toxic and unhealthy for people to live and work in, than it would be to have IV drip of mountain dew 24/7.

And I really don't think that's much of a stretch. Plus, lets's face it. If you are living or working in or around NYC, your health isn't priority number one.

I lived and worked in NYC for 12 years, and I found the people I dealt with very concerned with their health. Coming from Michigan, I noticed the difference in the number of obese people right away. Not owning cars and walking everywhere tends to make a dent in your gut.

But what you said about the air, germs, etc., is true.

[Lousluggage]

Have you seen the new packaging for soft drinks? Tiny cans, about the size and diameter of a V8 can. I wouldn't imagine that they are more than 6 oz. Target had them last week.

Funny you mention the coffee. I drink it all day, but always from a vintage 6 oz diner mug. (The really heavy ones.) I don't know why I love that little mug so much, but I do.

I've seen the smaller containers, and I like them. It's a good size for when you want to have something for a 2-4 hour road trip, without having to make a pit stop. Plus I am actually able to finish the smaller sizes before the drink gets cold/warm, depending on what temp it was when I got it.

[Deleterious]

[pyrotigers]

I hope they back this up with some junk science diet fad crap. Exercising and cutting calories? nah, it's probably all carbs/fat/sugar/high fructose corn syrup/bio-engineered food

[Oblong]

Those companies should stop all advertising in the city. Push back.

[ROMAD1]

Those companies should stop all advertising in the city. Push back.

Pepsi was HQ'd in NYC...if they still are they should move out.

[chasfh]

Study: Exercise Is Bad for Some People

Don't exercise, then. You don't need this as an excuse. Just own it.

[chasfh]

I worked in NYC for a couple of years. In my experience, I think that the air, the vile smell, and the germ ridden streets and public transit is way more toxic and unhealthy for people to live and work in, than it would be to have IV drip of mountain dew 24/7.

And I really don't think that's much of a stretch. Plus, lets's face it. If you are living or working in or around NYC, your health isn't priority number one.

City vs. Country: Who Is Healthier? - WSJ.com

For many urban dwellers, the country conjures up images of clean air, fresh food and physical activities. But these days, Americans residing in major cities live longer, healthier lives overall than their country cousins—a reversal from decades past

[chasfh]

No one can reasonably argue against the fact that obesity rates have risen dramatically over the last several decades.

There can be only two reasons this has happened:

1. The environment has been radically altered, making food and drink that makes people fatter more easily accessible.
2. Human nature has radically changed, and people today make worse decisions about their diets than people did decades ago, because they're simply not as smart about it.

Which one is it?

[pyrotigers]

The United States is going to have some serious issues population wise in the future, too many old people on social security and not enough young workers. Therefore, for the health and safety of our nation as a whole, I believe Michael Bloomberg should ban contraception in New York City. At the least. Preferably the Federal Government would make it nationwide.

It's for our own good.

[PuNk42AE]

No one can reasonably argue against the fact that obesity rates have risen dramatically over the last several decades.

There can be only two reasons this has happened:

1. The environment has been radically altered, making food and drink that makes people fatter more easily accessible.
2. Human nature has radically changed, and people today make worse decisions about their diets than people did decades ago, because they're simply not as smart about it.

Which one is it?

I don't think it's really either of those, over how human nature has changed based on movement, (not as much as the food). When you used to have to bike, or walk compared to everyone having a car. And then adding in TV and computers ect over the last 20 years meaning that everyone is stationary compared to out out and about.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

No one can reasonably argue against the fact that obesity rates have risen dramatically over the last several decades.

There can be only two reasons this has happened:

1. The environment has been radically altered, making food and drink that makes people fatter more easily accessible.
2. Human nature has radically changed, and people today make worse decisions about their diets than people did decades ago, because they're simply not as smart about it.

Which one is it?

Well like everything else in the world, as technology advances the food you want to eat is much easier to come by. So of course the environment has changed, life has become a lot more convenient.

So I would say both of your statements are true, with convenience being the root cause, as easier access makes it easier to be 'dumb' about what you eat.

[Lousluggage]

I don't think it's really either of those, over how human nature has changed based on movement, (not as much as the food). When you used to have to bike, or walk compared to everyone having a car. And then adding in TV and computers ect over the last 20 years meaning that everyone is stationary compared to out out and about.

I think that a higher percentage of the population also now has sedentary jobs, so that people who previously would have had jobs requiring almost constant albeit light movement now sit in cubicles.

[Oblong]

No one can reasonably argue against the fact that obesity rates have risen dramatically over the last several decades.

There can be only two reasons this has happened:

1. The environment has been radically altered, making food and drink that makes people fatter more easily accessible.
2. Human nature has radically changed, and people today make worse decisions about their diets than people did decades ago, because they're simply not as smart about it.

Which one is it?

I think it's #1. I don't think it's sweets or soda. It's that we're eating too much. And combine that with less physical activity.

But I am dead set against these types of rules. Maybe someone indulges on a 24 ounce big gulp or slurpee 4 times a year.

[chasfh]

I don't think it's really either of those, over how human nature has changed based on movement, (not as much as the food). When you used to have to bike, or walk compared to everyone having a car. And then adding in TV and computers ect over the last 20 years meaning that everyone is stationary compared to out out and about.

Aren't you describing an environmental change here?

[screwball]

High fructose corn syrup, GMO's, Monsanto, .gov corn subsidies.

[chasfh]

Well like everything else in the world, as technology advances the food you want to eat is much easier to come by. So of course the environment has changed, life has become a lot more convenient.

So I would say both of your statements are true, with convenience being the root cause, as easier access makes it easier to be 'dumb' about what you eat.

Do you seriously contend that human nature -- the basic nature of the entire human race -- has changed significantly enough in the last several decades to lead people to fundamentally alter our behavior? And that this is behavior we would never have exhibited if today's environment had existed in this exact form decades ago?

[PuNk42AE]

Aren't you describing an environmental change here?

Maybe I was misunderstanding how you stated it, but you had said "The environment has been radically altered, making food and drink that makes people fatter more easily accessible." I took that as you saying it was the changes made to the food.

[chasfh]

I think it's #1. I don't think it's sweets or soda. It's that we're eating too much. And combine that with less physical activity.

But I am dead set against these types of rules. Maybe someone indulges on a 24 ounce big gulp or slurpee 4 times a year.

I agree that it is #1, and there are numerous examples you and I know that can be both offered up as evidence. So you and I are on the same page there.

So if human nature hasn't changed, and we are behaving in response to our environment, then how should a change in the environment be addressed to help solve this problem?

[chasfh]

Maybe I was misunderstanding how you stated it, but you had said "The environment has been radically altered, making food and drink that makes people fatter more easily accessible." I took that as you saying it was the changes made to the food.

You're right -- I mistakenly left the part out about human exercise, which we both agree that technological advances have reduced.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

Do you seriously contend that human nature -- the basic nature of the entire human race -- has changed significantly enough in the last several decades to lead people to fundamentally alter our behavior? And that this is behavior we would never have exhibited if today's environment had existed in this exact form decades ago?

I didn't say that at all. I'm saying if Ma and Pa Frontiersman had access to a twinkie factory they'd have eaten twinkies. Has basic human nature changed? No, but the actual decisions that humans make now are more complex in the sense that there's a lot less restraining factors. Whether you call that the chicken or the egg is another debate.

[Joe Gahona]

I heard that 7-11's Big Gulp might not be covered by the law because 7-11 is not a restaurant.

[chasfh]

I didn't say that at all.

I'm so sorry! I don't know how I could have interpreted your statement "So I would say both of your statements are true" to mean that both the environment changing and human nature changing are true.

OK, I'll let you off the hook on this one.

I'm saying if Ma and Pa Frontiersman had access to a twinkie factory they'd have eaten twinkies. Has basic human nature changed? No, but the actual decisions that humans make now are more complex in the sense that there's a lot less restraining factors. Whether you call that the chicken or the egg is another debate.

So to sum up: while human nature hasn't changed, people are making different dietary choices because the environment has changed. Do I have you straight here?

[Who is the Drizzle?]

I'm so sorry! I don't know how I could have interpreted your statement "So I would say both of your statements are true" to mean that both the environment changing and human nature changing are true.

OK, I'll let you off the hook on this one.



So to sum up: while human nature hasn't changed, people are making different dietary choices because the environment has changed. Do I have you straight here?

Sorry, I probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. I think the environment has changed human nature. I don't mean just that the food environment has changed what we eat, I mean the life we now live has been changed so much by advances in, well, everything. And of course it human nature that strives for advancement and strives to improve the environment, although of course sometimes local achievements (I can make widget X 10 times as fast at half the cost) might hurt broadly (widget X makes me fat).

so however you want to interpret that in the spectrum as to being 1 or 2 or both or neither is fine with me. I certainly don't think your final summary tells but a fraction of the story.

[juiceman]

I heard that 7-11's Big Gulp might not be covered by the law because 7-11 is not a restaurant.

Correct. I think it only affects places that serve prepared foods. Although, 7-11 does sell prepared (if you can call it that) foods as well. So, the law really does not make a lot of sense because of this, if it's indeed true.

[chasfh]

Sorry, I probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. I think the environment has changed human nature. I don't mean just that the food environment has changed what we eat, I mean the life we now live has been changed so much by advances in, well, everything. And of course it human nature that strives for advancement and strives to improve the environment, although of course sometimes local achievements (I can make widget X 10 times as fast at half the cost) might hurt broadly (widget X makes me fat).

so however you want to interpret that in the spectrum as to being 1 or 2 or both or neither is fine with me. I certainly don't think your final summary tells but a fraction of the story.

OK, let's presume for the purpose of this discussion that your contention -- that the environment has changed human nature -- is correct. So the question is, if we are behaving in response to our environment, then how should a change in the environment be addressed to help solve this problem?

[Who is the Drizzle?]

OK, let's presume for the purpose of this discussion that your contention -- that the environment has changed human nature -- is correct. So the question is, if we are behaving in response to our environment, then how should a change in the environment be addressed to help solve this problem?

In a broad sense, there's nothing to indicate that this is a problem.

If you are talking obesity specifically, you do what you can. For instance, if you want to ban the purchase of soft drinks with food stamps, that's fine by me, it's the gov'ts money. But there's no way that somebody is innocently buying a big gulp with their earned money thinking it won't add calories or make them fat if they drink it too much. Ultimately, what people put in their mouths is their own decision, at some point we have to say that we've done enough to educate and if they want to eat unhealthy foods in large amounts there's nothing we can do to stop them.

[smr-nj]

Just because these amuse me.........

[Oblong]

Why wouldn't it include alcoholic drinks?

[ROMAD1]

NYC needs Rudy back

[ROMAD1]

Why wouldn't it include alcoholic drinks?

Good point.

[chasfh]

In a broad sense, there's nothing to indicate that this is a problem.

If you are talking obesity specifically, you do what you can. For instance, if you want to ban the purchase of soft drinks with food stamps, that's fine by me, it's the gov'ts money. But there's no way that somebody is innocently buying a big gulp with their earned money thinking it won't add calories or make them fat if they drink it too much. Ultimately, what people put in their mouths is their own decision, at some point we have to say that we've done enough to educate and if they want to eat unhealthy foods in large amounts there's nothing we can do to stop them.

Are you seriously contending that obesity is not a problem in this country?

[Who is the Drizzle?]

Are you seriously contending that obesity is not a problem in this country?

No. Why do you keep asking me ridiculous questions?

I said if you're talking about humans advancing their society in general, that's not a bad thing.

I said if you're talking about advancing society increasing obesity, here's what I think should and shouldn't be done for the problem. Am I having a stroke or something nobody understands the words that are coming out of my mouth?

[pyrotigers]

I think obesity is a serious problem in this country, but I also think banning large drinks will do absolutely zero to fix that

[Oblong]

Am I right that I could not buy a 24 ounce coke but could guy a 24 ounce fufu martini? Heck even beer. Is one beer more or less harmful and costly to society than one coke? Cant buy a 20 ounce coke but can buy a 24 ounce of a strong beer?