Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about you tell us why it is a closer comparison, instead of being insulting?
Both cause cancer.
noppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Is it time to treat sugar like smoking?
251–260 of 261 posts
Re: Is it time to treat sugar like smoking?
#252I started eating keto over a year ago, and found that I totally lost my appetite for sugary and other carb-based foods, so have just kept it up. One thing that was eye opening to me was from paying close attention to food labels. I used to try to mostly eat "healthy", so I'd tend to buy the "low calorie" options. What surprised me was how basically they just substitute fat for sugar. Ceasar dressing normal has 1g car…
I've been trying out carnivore diet for a couple of months. I went from years of yo-yo dieting and pathological binge eating to effortlessly losing 10% of my bodyweight. I think my psychology got rewired somehow, I don't know how else to explain such a drastic change in behavior.
I just finished a month of carnivore and have stopped doing it, as my life had become a living hell from my frequent and urgent trips to the bathroom. Other than that, it was good for my waistline.
Re: Is it time to treat sugar like smoking?
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alcohol as a party drug now competes with other party drugs in many markets. Particularly cannabis. This is one reason performance of advertising bans might differ from region to region. Cannabis as a party drug has a pretty broad advertising ban in most places, but alcohol does not. If it's a matter of convincing consumers to buy one party drug instead of the other, an alcohol advertising ban could be highly effecti…
> So to suggest that demand for alcohol is immutable seems quite absurd. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I suggested this. I'm also not interested in an emotional discussion on alcohol advertisement bans, because I frankly don't care. Please don't put words in my mouth though.
If demand for alcohol is not immutable then demand for alcohol is not truly inelastic as your "third option" suggests.
Re: Is it time to treat sugar like smoking?
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
So natural juice is okay, but water with sugar added to it is labeled as harmful? Yet the former is just as bad for you as the latter.
This is not true; juice has useful nutrients. You can make vegetable and fruit juices which are fairly low in sugar and are packed with vitamins and minerals.
And you tend to get enough of those nutrients from other sources of food nowadays. While it's true that some juices can have less sugar in them, the most common ones don't. Apple juice will not have less sugar than a soda.
Re: Is it time to treat sugar like smoking?
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
So natural juice is okay, but water with sugar added to it is labeled as harmful? Yet the former is just as bad for you as the latter.
This is not true; juice has useful nutrients. You can make vegetable and fruit juices which are fairly low in sugar and are packed with vitamins and minerals.
It's more useful to just eat the fruit and veg though.
Re: Is it time to treat sugar like smoking?
#256It'd be much harder than cigarettes to define and enforce, and more prone to loopholes. What's a "sugary food"? Grams of sugar? They'd just sell fun-sized. Percentage mass? That could impact fruit. Added sugar? What is "non-added sugar"? Specific product categories like soda and candy? They'd just walk the line with things like "sweetened sparkling water". I support the idea in principle, and I hope they figure out a…
If I eat a strawberry thats non-added sugar. If I sprinkle sugar on the strawberry, thats added sugar. It would be pretty easy to deduce the distinction between added and not sugars - if you put a sugar in your food and list it in the ingredients it has added sugar. If the thing as its grown has sugar then its not an added sugar. If that leads to the GMO modification of crops even further to produce more sugars thats…
[deleted]
Re: Is it time to treat sugar like smoking?
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eating disorders can be some of the most dangerous things you can suffer from (anorexia has a mortality of 30% if I remember correctly); however on a population scale the damage is dwafted buy the damage from obesity because so many more people are seriously fat.
Right, so there needs to be solutions that work for everyone. That’s why I think food access is key (i.e. more grocery stores in low income neighborhoods). People who need more food can get it, and people who need healthier food will have access.
That assumes that people will choose healthier food when it is available.
Re: Is it time to treat sugar like smoking?
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But on the other hand, consuming sugar mainly only harms yourself. See my comment re: health care costs (which everyone pays for).
Is the next step forbidding dangerous hobbies like mountain climbing? Maybe taking more than one job to support a large family or accumulate college funds for one's children--"you're not getting enough sleep, which increases health care costs that we pay for."
> forbidding dangerous hobbies like mountain climbing?
Well not that it would ever happen but why should I pay for someone's dangerous and/or foolish risky activity? (Rescue, health care and so on). People often act as if there is a large pot of money sitting around to cover any and all mistakes and life choices someone makes.
Re: Is it time to treat sugar like smoking?
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the next step forbidding dangerous hobbies like mountain climbing? Maybe taking more than one job to support a large family or accumulate college funds for one's children--"you're not getting enough sleep, which increases health care costs that we pay for."
Yes, if people need to work multiple jobs that is an indication of a huge societal problem. The workers in those jobs are being abused by the society and collectively we should fix it. We should change the law to make sure that every job pays a living wage, so that people are not forced to work 60+ hours per week at irregular hours plus commute time etc. just to survive. We should increase social support for families…
> and adequately train and support career teachers
I always love the 'teachers' pay discussions and argument. While there are many teachers that are dedicated and do a great job there are also many who go into it for the (at one point not sure if it's true everywhere still) guaranteed retirement money and summers off. Also if a career doesn't pay enough for whatever lifestyle you want or place you want to live perhaps you can give thought to either relocating somewhere else or before you pick that career (for whatever reason) what the pay and benefits are for your choice. For sure not everyone is in a position to do this but my guess is most don't even give that thought. Meaning for example they decide to become a teacher in a very expensive place (NYC let's say) and then even at $90k per year can't afford to lead a decent life style. They could probably move 60 miles west from NYC (to say rural Pennsylvania) and earn less and have a better life. But then they wouldn't be in NYC, right? And they've decided they have to be there. As any immigrant who has left their family and the familiarity of a foreign country would tell you sometimes you have to relocate somewhere else if it's not good where you are.
> so that people are not forced to work 60+ hours per week at irregular hours plus commute time etc
You'd have to look at the total picture of how they are spending their money though.
Re: Is it time to treat sugar like smoking?
#260No