RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare

RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Marini -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (5/31/2012 8:50:20 PM)
quote: You don't? This is the beginnings of government dictating your lifestyle in the food area. It's a very small step in the process of controlling what the government believes is bad for you. I LOVE the fact that you can see the nutrition facts on basically every food item that I purchase. It helps me make healthier choices. Having the nutrition facts on a menu, will at least let people SEE {approximately}what the calorie content/nutrition facts are in what they are ordering. How is having some idea of the nutritional content of food and beverages a BAD thing? No one is stopping you or controlling what you can order or eat? Making consumers more aware is a bad thing?

Real0ne -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (5/31/2012 8:50:30 PM)
time to short sugar huh? run on nutra sweet? thats rummies sweetheart deal ya know! cha ching! where would we be without our loving guburnmint! Now we are "modern" like the urope! suckers!

littlewonder -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (5/31/2012 8:51:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder I think it's absolutely great. I like to know what my calorie count is instead of having to do the math on my iPhone application. It would be easier with it already there. But for those people who are obese or on the verge of, numbers on a board ain't gonna change them. They'll still continue to eat in an unhealthy manner. This new thing bans drinks over 16 ounces with sugar in them. and again I'm fine with that. Soda, refined sugar is BAD for you. Yeah I still eat and drink them because they are there in front of me. If I don't see it though I won't be tempted to stuff them all down my throat in one day. I wouldn't mind even at least BIG huge red signs near foods telling you what is in the food and the calories. I'd more less interested in buying it then. When I walk into a store, there are about 20 different labels for the same thing. I want the one that is the best for me but I don't want to sit there all day going through each label. It would take me hours upon hours to shop that way. Putting a list or sign will cause me to grab the correct food or to not get it at all. I kinda like that. It saves me time, headaches and I get healthier. There are some restaurants I won't return to just because I have no idea how many calories are in their food. When Master and I try to figure out where to eat it's always a struggle because we're both trying to eat healthier but almost every restaurant in town, which is lots and lots, few sell healthy food. Most of the food is grease and huge huge portions, enough to feed 4 people. If a restaurant actually put the calorie count on their menu it would stick in my mind and I'd go to that restaurant much more often.

Aylee -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (5/31/2012 9:02:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini quote: You don't? This is the beginnings of government dictating your lifestyle in the food area. It's a very small step in the process of controlling what the government believes is bad for you. I LOVE the fact that you can see the nutrition facts on basically every food item that I purchase. It helps me make healthier choices. Having the nutrition facts on a menu, will at least let people SEE {approximately}what the calorie content/nutrition facts are in what they are ordering. How is having some idea of the nutritional content of food and beverages a BAD thing? No one is stopping you or controlling what you can order or eat? Making consumers more aware is a bad thing? They are not "making consumers more aware." They want to BAN, NOT ALLOW THE SALE OF, beverages over 16 ounces that have sugar in them. So, you may not get a 20 ounce Coke at McDonald's and so forth. quote: The list includes more than 20,000 restaurants, as well as movie theaters, stadiums and arenas. No 20 ounce Snapple for YOU! Yes, I think that the government telling me what size of soda I am allowed to buy at a restaurant is a BAD thing.

Marini -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (5/31/2012 9:13:07 PM)
Thanks Aylee, that information should have been in the op, but it's not. Why not just put it in the OP, we all don't click on links. If people want to drink 20 or 50 or 100 oz. of soda, let them. It is damn unhealthy, but why just pick on soda's? Banning 20 oz soda's is not going to cure obesity. That is silly.

erieangel -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (5/31/2012 9:18:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Marini quote: You don't? This is the beginnings of government dictating your lifestyle in the food area. It's a very small step in the process of controlling what the government believes is bad for you. I LOVE the fact that you can see the nutrition facts on basically every food item that I purchase. It helps me make healthier choices. Having the nutrition facts on a menu, will at least let people SEE {approximately}what the calorie content/nutrition facts are in what they are ordering. How is having some idea of the nutritional content of food and beverages a BAD thing? No one is stopping you or controlling what you can order or eat? Making consumers more aware is a bad thing? They are not "making consumers more aware." They want to BAN, NOT ALLOW THE SALE OF, beverages over 16 ounces that have sugar in them. So, you may not get a 20 ounce Coke at McDonald's and so forth. quote: The list includes more than 20,000 restaurants, as well as movie theaters, stadiums and arenas. No 20 ounce Snapple for YOU! Yes, I think that the government telling me what size of soda I am allowed to buy at a restaurant is a BAD thing. Very bad thing. If I want to stuff a 32 oz Pepsi down my gullet during a movie, I should be permitted to do so. What right is it of the government's to say what I can and can not drink while enjoying a movie which I paid more than enough to see in the first place?? Most restaurants offer free refills on soda. I suppose those will be banned as well? Big brother is watching.

Marini -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (5/31/2012 9:28:18 PM)
My downfall used to be the free re-fills on popcorn. We get the large size, and eat it during the movie, than get the free refill and take that one home. ......death by popcorn. [&o]

Real0ne -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (5/31/2012 9:32:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini Thanks Aylee, that information should have been in the op, but it's not. Why not just put it in the OP, we all don't click on links. If people want to drink 20 or 50 or 100 oz. of soda, let them. It is damn unhealthy, but why just pick on soda's? Banning 20 oz soda's is not going to cure obesity. That is silly. its too fucking expensive and we the tax payer do not want to foot that bill to pay for ohaha care! we need to cut costs and in 30 years they will go bankrupt like every other gubafia program in america

Real0ne -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (5/31/2012 9:35:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Very bad thing. If I want to stuff a 32 oz Pepsi down my gullet during a movie, I should be permitted to do so. What right is it of the government's to say what I can and can not drink while enjoying a movie which I paid more than enough to see in the first place?? Most restaurants offer free refills on soda. I suppose those will be banned as well? Big brother is watching. republican form of government the government has NO rights! Only authority! Monarchies and dictatorships the gub has rights.

Marini -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (5/31/2012 9:44:16 PM)
[sm=axe.gif] [sm=boohoo.gif] [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif] Does every single post have to be about the government or the Constitution? I don't read them, but have to scroll past the rants, it's a bother. You clog up threads with the same old crap. Time to exercise my constitutional right to use the hide/ignore button. Much better now! [;)]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (5/31/2012 9:45:08 PM)
There will be more coming. That's a guarantee, if Obamacare (PPACA for those of you who are anal about it) is allowed to stand. Anything that can impact your health and increase health care spending, will be open to Government intervention. You'll have to wait to see what the Administration at the time gets bent out of shape over. Think about it. If they get their knickers in a twist over the lack of nutrition in candy, they could ban candy, as the pure sugar it is made of can be deleterious to your health. Since they are paying for your health care, they have the duty to stop you from increasing your health costs, all in the name of saving taxpayer money. Or, they could mandate 2 hours of exercise a day, as it may be shown that 2 hours of exercise every day is good for your health. And, if they are paying for your health care, what's to stop them? Nothing. And, that's no joke.

Marini -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (5/31/2012 9:53:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri There will be more coming. That's a guarantee, if Obamacare (PPACA for those of you who are anal about it) is allowed to stand. Anything that can impact your health and increase health care spending, will be open to Government intervention. You'll have to wait to see what the Administration at the time gets bent out of shape over. Think about it. If they get their knickers in a twist over the lack of nutrition in candy, they could ban candy, as the pure sugar it is made of can be deleterious to your health. Since they are paying for your health care, they have the duty to stop you from increasing your health costs, all in the name of saving taxpayer money. Or, they could mandate 2 hours of exercise a day, as it may be shown that 2 hours of exercise every day is good for your health. And, if they are paying for your health care, what's to stop them? Nothing. And, that's no joke. Most of "us" aren't all that crazy about President Obama's health care plans. We prefer the single payer system! That's no joke either.

Real0ne -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (5/31/2012 10:19:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini Does every single post have to be about the government or the Constitution? I don't read them, but have to scroll past the rants, it's a bother. You clog up threads with the same old crap. Time to exercise my constitutional right to use the hide/ignore button. Much better now! [;)] yeh this is called religion and politics, my rights do not originate nor do I calim inferior rights from the constitution. be my guest however. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks%202/subjecttoemphasis-1.jpg[/image] oops constitution again, sorry

SternSkipper -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (5/31/2012 11:10:09 PM)
quote: yep everyone is now a ward of the state. hail our leaders they know best! look at our wonderful economy! nothing short of awesome! I heard YOUR GUBBERNOR say that very thing earlier tonight.

Moonhead -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/1/2012 4:04:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie This is the beginnings of government dictating your lifestyle in the food area. It's a very small step in the process of controlling what the government believes is bad for you. Really? And there was me thinking that they'd been doing that for a long while already. Ever heard of the Food And Drug Purity Act?

Moonhead -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/1/2012 4:06:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If they get their knickers in a twist over the lack of nutrition in candy, they could ban candy, as the pure sugar it is made of can be deleterious to your health. Most of it's full of hfcs, not pure sugar.

Aylee -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/1/2012 7:30:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If they get their knickers in a twist over the lack of nutrition in candy, they could ban candy, as the pure sugar it is made of can be deleterious to your health. Most of it's full of hfcs, not pure sugar. As far as the body is concerned, sugar is sugar.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/1/2012 7:39:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If they get their knickers in a twist over the lack of nutrition in candy, they could ban candy, as the pure sugar it is made of can be deleterious to your health. Most of it's full of hfcs, not pure sugar. High fructose corn syrup isn't sugar? Interesting. Now, you should notice that I did not say, "table sugar," which is not the same as HFCS. Take a pound of glucose, a pound of fructose, and a pound of table sugar (sucrose), what will you have? 3# of sugar. It's possible you didn't know this already, but sucrose is a di-saccharide made up of fructose and glucose, which are both mono-saccharides. And, within the blood stream, fructose and glucose act the same with regards to diabetes, insulin levels and glucagon. They are also metabolized in the same manner within the cells. But, do go on about how candy isn't pure sugar, as if that isn't anything other than semantics.

Moonhead -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/1/2012 7:48:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, within the blood stream, fructose and glucose act the same with regards to diabetes, insulin levels and glucagon. They are also metabolized in the same manner within the cells. They do not, and they are not. There's quite a bit of research published which suggests that fructose is not digested in the same fashion as glucose. At one point HFCS was being seriously pushed as a possible replacement for glucose based sugar in the diabetic diet as a result of that. When other issues with its side effects began to emerge, this notion was mostly abandoned.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Obesity, a cost to healthcare (6/1/2012 7:53:29 AM)
Got any authority for that statement, Aylee? Because this study says you are wrong. ScienceDaily (Jan. 23, 2012) — With growing concern that excessive levels of fructose may pose a great health risk -- causing high blood pressure, kidney disease and diabetes -- researchers at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, along with their colleagues at the University of Florida, set out to see if two common sweeteners in Western diets differ in their effects on the body in the first few hours after ingestion. The study, recently published in the journal Metabolism, took a closer look at high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and table sugar (sucrose) and was led by Dr. MyPhuong Le (now a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Colorado) and Dr. Julie Johnson, a professor of pharmacogenomics at the University of Florida. Both HFCS and sucrose have historically been considered to have nearly identical effects on the body. But this study finds that indeed there is a difference between the two. They found that the makeup of the sugars resulted in differences in how much fructose was absorbed into the circulation, and which could have a potential impact on one's health. Sucrose is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose that is bonded together as a disaccharide (complex carbohydrate), while HFCS is a mixture of free fructose (55 percent) and free glucose (45 percent). It's the difference in fructose amount that appears to create the ill health effects on the body. Their study was conducted at the University of Florida, where they evaluated 40 men and women who were given 24 ounces of HFCS -- or sugar-sweetened soft drinks. Careful measurements showed that the HFCS-sweetened soft drinks resulted in significantly higher fructose levels than the sugar-sweetened drinks. Fructose is also known to increase uric acid levels that have been implicated in blood pressure, and the HFCS-sweetened drinks resulted in a higher uric acid level and a 3 mm Hg greater rise in systolic blood pressure. Dr. Richard Johnson, a co-author in the study and chief of the Division of Renal Diseases and Hypertension at the University of Colorado, commented, "Although both sweeteners are often considered the same in terms of their biological effects, this study demonstrates that there are subtle differences. Soft drinks containing HFCS result in slightly higher blood levels of fructose than sucrose-sweetened drinks." He added, "The next step is for new studies to address whether the long-term effects of these two sweeteners are different." quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead As far as the body is concerned, sugar is sugar.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875