What do you think of a ban on larger size drinks?

[lacktheknack]

2 Liters? Do they really sell drinks that are Two liters?! How did it take so long for someone to even consider this ban?

I mean, what the hell? I think here in Sweden 0,5 liters is the largest we've got.

And up here in Canada, we have the 1L. No one buys it, because seriously, come on.

OT: Seeing how my tax dollars are paying for public healthcare, I support moves that eliminate completely unnecessary health shattering actions. Small soda? That's fine. 1L soda? No.

 

[ntw3001]

Are people really that stupid that they think a few extra sips of soda is the cause of obesity in this country?

Here's a thought, you want to fix this problem? Government sponsored/mandated exercise programs. Forced marches and such. A tad extreme sure, but the #1 cause of obesity is not getting off your fat ass. Your food/drink choice is irrelevant as long as you work off the calories.

But no, let's pretend this even has a chance of having any effect at all. Someone on capitol hill needs to justify their paycheck to maintain the illusion of not being completely worthless.

A 64oz Coke is, apparently, around 800 calories. Cutting 400 calories here and 400 there is scarcely a trivial change, especially to regular consumers. 32oz is not 'a few extra sips'; it's three full cans. You're talking about drinking three cans of coke less.

Government-sponsored exercise programs? Where's the money coming from? Are all the 'curtailing our freedom' arguments going to weaken in the face of forced marches?

Also, no, the no.1 cause of obesity is not lack of exercise alone. Calories in and calories out have to balance. That means both diet and exercise have to be tended to equally; they're not isolated things. Secretly, though, diet is easier to change. What would take less time and effort: declining to drink 400 calories' worth of Coke, or running those 400 calories off on a treadmill? And, of course, a change of diet carries a whole bunch of benefits that 'eat only burgers but never leave the gym' doesn't offer.

 

[piinyouri]

I think it's bullshit and anyone who supports such things shouldn't be allowed near a lawbook with anything capable of editing it.


First of all soda is NOT unhealthy. Drinking too much of it is what causes problems. This is the case with everything you can possibly drink. You can cause problems drinking too much water, too much milk, too much OJ. A can or two of coke a day is not going to make you fat, give you diabeetus, and burden the system.


Secondly, STAY THE FUCK OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES! The people are perfectly capable of making the healthy choice if they want to. They clearly don't. They clearly want to choose the tasty one instead. LET THEM!


Fucking hell...god I sound like a republican, but for fuck's sake people stop trying to run everyone else's lives! If I want a double gulp that fucker had best be 64oz. That's what I'm paying for, that's what a double gulp is, that's what I had best be getting. If the government thinks that's wrong oh well, they can go fuck themselves. My body my rules.

Mary Lu Ann Christ, this right here, all of it.

You are not responsible for other peoples bad decisions.

 

[Aeonknight]

Are people really that stupid that they think a few extra sips of soda is the cause of obesity in this country?

Here's a thought, you want to fix this problem? Government sponsored/mandated exercise programs. Forced marches and such. A tad extreme sure, but the #1 cause of obesity is not getting off your fat ass. Your food/drink choice is irrelevant as long as you work off the calories.

But no, let's pretend this even has a chance of having any effect at all. Someone on capitol hill needs to justify their paycheck to maintain the illusion of not being completely worthless.

A 64oz Coke is, apparently, around 800 calories. Cutting 400 calories here and 400 there is scarcely a trivial change, especially to regular consumers. 32oz is not 'a few extra sips'; it's three full cans. You're talking about drinking three cans of coke less.

Government-sponsored exercise programs? Where's the money coming from? Are all the 'curtailing our freedom' arguments going to weaken in the face of forced marches?

Also, no, the no.1 cause of obesity is not lack of exercise alone. Calories in and calories out have to balance. That means both diet and exercise have to be tended to equally; they're not isolated things. Secretly, though, diet is easier to change. What would take less time and effort: declining to drink 400 calories' worth of Coke, or running those 400 calories off on a treadmill? And, of course, a change of diet carries a whole bunch of benefits that 'eat only burgers but never leave the gym' doesn't offer.

Ok, the forced marches bit was an exaggeration. Along the lines of "if you're going to take away freedom of choice, do it right. At least this way it'll have an effect."

And you're right, it's all a numbers game with calories. As long as your input is less than your output, you will lose weight. How hard you have to work to achieve the required level of output is a case by case basis, metabolism of the individual and all that. But if I want to increase said work load, that's my choice. Yes changes in diet can be considered the path of least resistance, but again: that's my bloody choice.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

And I fail the quote... but anyway!

Thanks... I think. Yeah, pretty sure that's a 'thanks' and not a 'run away run away!' I'm going for.

You cannot run from my love, unicorn!

[small][small]I'm going to go ahead and leave for some lunch. You know, before you make things weird [/small][/small]

Ahem, it's Love is slowing you down my lady. I will catch you at last if you love much more. Ah, the power of quotes to make things 'weird'

But enough derailment! I'll get another ridiculous warning that I'll have to protest in vain like the one I recently got for low content elsewhere. Ruined my whole day.

 

[GlorySeeker]

I disagree. The government shouldnt need to step in. People need to learn to exercise self control. Seriously. its not the governments job to tell you that you dont need a 60oz drink. They shouldnt need to hold your hand.

 

[Asita]

Honestly, I think it's a whole new level of stupid. For starters, we aren't talking about just banning those obscenely large plastic tubs the size of backpacks at 7-Eleven, we're talking about a maximum drink size of 16 ounces. So yeah, to both sides, how about we knock off the 64 ounce bit and recognize that the ban targets much more reasonable sizes too? And let's be perfectly honest, at the end of the day the ban is essentially pointless.

Yeah, you can't go King-size with your tasty beverage when you go to Burger King, but a) If your first health concern you have about Burger King is how much tasty beverage you have, your priorities are seriously messed up, and b) Burger King (and most other fast food joints and restaurants in general) offer free refills anyway, so there's nothing preventing them from getting the same amount of soda for a lower cost after the ban[footnote]Not that there's anything that stops savvy consumers from doing this already, mind you[/footnote]. And, as John Stewart aptly pointed out, it's positively counterintuitive to single out soda as being responsible for obesity given what else is out there that is so much worse for you and perfectly legal. It's like if prohibition targeted Budweiser but left Vodka and Moonshine alone. And to top it all off, let's be honest with ourselves. Let's assume for a minute that this went through without a hitch and people ordered smaller drinks and were stupid enough not to get their free refills[footnote]which so many sit-down restaurants supply before you can even ask for them[/footnote]...do we really think that's going to accomplish its intended goal? That this is some magical key to vanquishing obesity? Or do you think that maybe the increasingly sedintary lifestyle adopted by americans plays a larger role in our flabbiness than whether or not we bought a Big Gulp?

 

[darkbshadow]

I am an opponent to this law but I'm also an opponent to all laws that limit freedom where the only one who would get hurt is themselves. As long as your addiction doesn't harm someone else it should be fair game. If you want to Smoke, get stoned, drunk, high, or any other bad habit that is harmful to yourself and you aren't harming anyone else while under those influences then you should be able to go ahead and do it.

I also do feel that it is necessary to have a better system of education to let people know that these HUGE portion sizes are bad for you(not just soft drinks but food portion sizes as well). Stop trying to protect people from themselves by limiting the portion sizes they can purchase instead educate them and show them that the portion sizes they are consuming is bad for them. If they still choose to consume it that is on them.

Granted this bill wont effect how much someone consumes. Since they can still purchase multiple of the smaller servings. This will just bump up the cost for that person buying the products.

Personally I don't drink much soda anymore I have maybe one 12oz can a week if that. I can't even drink a 20oz soda in one sitting anymore. I just feel bloated after consuming it. But if someone else wants to do they can go right ahead. I have my own personal vices that are harmful to me. Like I don't exercise enough and I drink in excess with friends. So it's no place for me to judge or control someone else.

 

[Spitfire]

As someone who used to be dependent on sugary drinks (Coke mostly), and drank nothing but, for almost 3 years straight, I have to ask: is this for real?

At the conclusion of those 3 years, I was in great shape physically, and the only reason I stopped, was because I had a massive scare once, when I mixed some things that I shouldn't have, and my insides went all diet-Coke-and-ment, basically.
Hell, my grandfather has been drinking sugary drinks for longer than I ever did, and apart from having some age-related problems with his heart, he's otherwise in great physical shape.

Now, anything done in excess is bad, and I'm certain that's true here as well, but when eating a meal at a place like McDonalds, I don't think that there's any amount of drinks that you could realistically order that would affect an ordinary person's health.

 

[Yan007]

I want to apologize in advance for what will probably be a wall of text.

A little background info: I am bodybuilding. I stopped 3 years ago due to a big muscle tear and finally got back into the game 5 months ago. While I stopped training I picked up bad habits and gained much weight. Last February I was at 185 pounds, 2 months ago I was 145 pounds (I am 166cm tall). I am now 151 pounds (I am in the process of bulking- gaining muscles). I also am a teacher in China. Used to teach English in Quebec (Canada) and decided to move here for a while and travel.

Most people won't believe me, but there are more fat kids here than I have ever seen anywhere else in my life, including America. My father is a truck driver so I went south of the border all the way down to Mexico quite a few times and saw my share of fat asses but it really is much worse here in China right now. I think we will hear of this Chinese problem globally within the next few years as it becomes harder and harder to ignore.

The secret to having less fat on you and being leaner is not really this difficult to grasp. When I get questions about how to eat well I am always surprised. It's true that because I am a bodybuilder it is my "job" to know how to work with my body. Basically though, the easiest calories to burn are proteins and natural fats (as in animal fat and butter,beef tallow...) and the worst calorie is sugar (carbs included - carbs ARE sugar).

In nature sugar is ALWAYS found with fibers. You won't find something that has sugar in it that does not also have some form of fiber (milk, maybe). Fiber is how sugar ingestion is slowed down - keeping your insulin levels lower. Insulin will store your calories as fat therefore it is in your best interest to keep your insulin level low at all times. This is also why "brown" bread or whole wheat bread is considered healthier for you. It has little to do with the added nutrients, but a lot to do with the fiber it contains which will slow down insulin spikes.

It is a fact that Americans are fatter on average than they were decades ago. What changed? The only substantial change to diets comes from the ingestion of sugar through juices and pops. Although it does matter, it has little to do with calories themselves. A calorie is not just a calorie and calories from sugar are not "empty", they are a poison your body has to fight by making more insulin to keep you from dying. When you take the deadly combo of drinking a pop and eating fried carbs (fries), the sugar spike tells your body to pump as much insulin as fast as possible. This makes your body store more calories as fat than it would otherwise do if you had takes said calories from your drink and fries as 2 extra burgers for example. By the way, the average adult has the equivalent of a single tablespoon of sugar in their body. A can of soda has 3. Do the math.

All that said though, I am against any regulation of portion sizes. I see people trying to lose weight with ineffective methods all the time and reducing portion sizes will change nothing. Educating people about healthy habits is a good thing too, but the real problem comes down to this: most people don't have the willpower to change themselves. Changing yourself is difficult because you have to admit you don't like the way you are right now and you must act on it. Losing weight and health are so private and independent on an individual's will that any collective attempts to force change in individuals will, at best, bring ridiculously ineffective results.

You can't force people to lose weight. You have to convince them to stop drinking pop and juice completely and drop carbs to sometimes as low as 100g at most a day and replace the missing calories with proteins and good animal fats. You have to make a lifetime commitment to removing sugar from their diet and treating it as it is: a poison. Ya, I do take in sugar sometimes in the form of ice cream or candy - maybe once or twice a month.

 

[Faladorian]

of course,this wouldn't help anything, it would just cause people to buy more cups.

The Eelektross is right.

If you ban a certain portion but not number of portions, you're not decreasing consumption, only increasing the amount of containers needed.

Plus, the government restricting the number of calories a person can consume is too much control.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

You guys do know anything above 0.5 liters is considered crazy by europeans right?

the largest I've seen is 0.7 at burger king and people look at me funny when I buy that one

 

[ntw3001]

Yeah, you can't go King-size with your tasty beverage when you go to Burger King, but a) If your first health concern you have about Burger King is how much tasty beverage you have, your priorities are seriously messed up, and b) Burger King (and most other fast food joints and restaurants in general) offer free refills anyway, so there's nothing preventing them from getting the same amount of soda for a lower cost after the ban.

No problem then! Inn practice, though, most people won't bother. They'll finish their food, finish their drink and go. Of course, some people will stoically suck down more than before just to (somehow) show those fat cats in city hall that they're grown-ups, but they won't last long.

And, as John Stewart aptly pointed out, it's positively counterintuitive to single out soda as being responsible for obesity given what else is out there that is so much worse for you and perfectly legal. It's like if prohibition targeted Budweiser but left Vodka and Moonshine alone. And to top it all off, let's be honest with ourselves. Let's assume for a minute that this went through without a hitch and people ordered smaller drinks and were stupid enough not to get their free refills[footnote]which so many sit-down restaurants supply before you can even ask for them[/footnote]...do we really think that's going to accomplish its intended goal? That this is some magical key to vanquishing obesity? Or do you think that maybe the increasingly sedintary lifestyle adopted by americans plays a larger role in our flabbiness than whether or not we bought a Big Gulp?

Oh, it's 'if it doesn't solve everything by itself, I'm going to pretend it doesn't make any difference' again. I've seen that before. Why cut your calories if you can't cut all of them? With one easy pill? Also, you should learn maths from taking the pill because school is a drag

Really, it bugs me a little. I'm not in favour of Government intervention on decisions that only harm the decider. It's more that I'm baffled at the reaction to a ruling which, in any other country in the world, would provoke the response: 'Uh, okay. Did people drink those?' Honestly, the reaction makes Americans as a whole seem bloody-minded and childish.

How much can we raise to get New York City Council to outlaw biting one's own ear? I would love to see the response.

 

[him over there]

I think any country that has an 'epidemic' of a lifestyle illness needs to take a long hard look at itself. (unfortunately that applies just as well to the UK, fattest country in Europe whoo!)

It is kind of obscene that so many of us are overweight when there are famines in other countries. It's hard to think of any solution to the problem, however, which doesn't infringe people's freedom.

Actually plenty of the problems with the unhealthy lifestyle perverting our lives is actually mostly due to a combination of economic reasons such as the fact that less physically intensive jobs are becoming more numerous, suburbs make driving nearly a must because of how unnecessarily spaced out places are and especially the price of food. Three apples costs $2 where I live, an entire meal at McDonald's costs just 50 cents over that. Before being fit was a simple by product of a normal life, however now there are less opportunities for active living and healthier eating so being fit is now delegated to a conscious effort. I don't get all the exercise I need in a normal day so I have to put away time exclusively for doing that.

This leads to another problem caused by the conscious effort because people lose sight of why they should be fit in the first place. Oh boy kids it's story time! So we have a fitness club at our school, not really a club more an in school gym about 10 times cheaper than a real gym. I started going to it because I don't have my landscaping job in the winter and I needed a new way to stay fit. One of my friends, you know he's a little chubby so he wanted to give it a shot with me. About 2 and a half weeks in he tells me he wants to quit. I was shocked because he was actually making amazing progress between his workout and his slightly refurbished diet. I asked him why. He told me "I just don't see the benefit of giving up hours of my time and cutting out activities and food I enjoy quite a lot just to stave off a few extra pounds."

I mean if you're ordering a litre pop then yeah fucking wake up but honestly there is more to it than simply being a slob with no self respect or control.

 

[Signa]

Of course you could argue with that your choice of a drink does't do squat to anyone else directly like a massive firestorm and you're correct. However indirectly you are with higher tax rates (or insurance premiums) needed for medical services struggling to cope with peoples 'choice' of being morbidly obese.

So we should place the bottom line of a private corporation over the interests of free will? That will work marvelously!

@testEcul
Something about they way you worded your posts really struck home on this issue for me. This literally is a "keep your laws off my body" issue, but I don't think anyone will bother to put it that way.

 

[InsipidMadness]

People do however have the right to make whatever health choice they want. However, when their health risks attribute to my taxes, then it's not alright. In the same way they do cigarettes, they should just impose a tax on obesity inducing choices like larger meals and drinks at fast food places and such. That tax then goes to the people who end up in the hospital for lung cancer (smoking) or the heart failures that comes with obesity. That way they're paying for their health risk, and their over consumption of products isn't coming out of my pocket when it comes to repairing them.