and a large coke from mac ds about 100% of your rđa of sugar.
then people wonder why so many people have diabetes - an inability of your body to process sugar...
Now, that's the logic, and it's a sound logic, go explain that to people every time you are drinking water in a pub and they go: "ehm, uh, you don't drink?". Which, by the way, if not explained properly can seem like you are a recovering alcoholic, if explained properly will make you sound like a food/diet nazy.
Anyway. You shouldn't be surprised if people react incredulously when you're not just deviating from the social norm but opting out of entire categories. "I only drink water" is no different in that regard than "I'm a vegan" or "I only eat raw food". It's a perfectly fine preference, but you're going to be an exception and exceptions tend to stand out.
I'm German but don't like beer and feel rather dispassionate about football (or "soccer" to Americans). It used to take some explaining when I was younger (i.e. teens and early 20s) but at 30 I find that barely anyone cares about it -- simply because they've learned that they don't have to agree with everyone about everything to be friends.
: Except die-hard football fans who can't imagine anyone not at least enjoying the sport or uber-machos who think drinking beer is a requirement for being a man. But those traits tend to be obnoxious enough on their own.
On the other hand, 100% of us drink alcohol, and so far the only people I've met who are my age, from the US, and don't drink are recovering alcoholics and people whom I've later discovered are extremely anxious and worried about the possibility of feeling "out of control" (which is a totally valid reason not to drink).
People react that way because they take your statement as a moral judgement.
Even subjective "preferences" such as "I like soft-drinks" have logical consequences, or implicit decisions associated with them. I.e. "I am fine with hurting my long-term health because I enjoy the immediate rush of soft-drinks." Not every can live their lives in a completely evidence-based, logically-optimized way.
On alcohol and drinks in general, even at 30, I think people still care, especially the ones you meet for the first time. Simply put, not drinking alcohol may signal a bad past (alcoholism), or being a potential nut job (diet nazy or gym pumper on steroids). This is actually useful information in social interactions, so I do understand why it is so widely used. On the other end, being vegan is so much accepted and so common and fashionable right now that the signal you get out of it is rather poor, so it's used less to pre-select or to make quick judgments.
You say useful and understandable, I say shitty and judgmental.
By the way, how are you finding life in Munich as an Italian? I've been thinking about moving after I complete my degree, so I'm quite interested to see what other people's experiences are in that regard.
I'd sure appreciate it if you didn't spread that hateful FUD in this setting. There's quite a wide range between sedentary and 'gym pumper on steroids', please be respectful to those who choose to occupy a different place on that continuum than you.
Some people like the taste of soda or the effects of alcohol. That's the logic, and it trumps the fact that "useless" calories are being consumed. We aren't rational automatons.
Or people could just stop being so nosey and judgemental. Option 1 is easier though.
(this isn't the case in the US, where it can refer to pretty much any canned sweetened drink - Coca Cola / Sprite / Dr Pepper / etc)
Regarding alcohol: I kind of understand the skepticism about people who don't drink. Drinking usually puts you in a more honest, less controlled, and less guarded condition, which makes drinking with other people almost a trust exercise. Not drinking at a pub is kind of like bringing your sword into a gathering where everyone else agreed to leave theirs' at the door.
All these comments like "you're not respecting social norms" feel kind of offensive. And now this sword straw man.
Sorry, but not drinking simply makes me not drunk. I'm never "more honest" and "less guarded" when I'm drunk (that's why I don't like it - I fight the drunk state of mind every time).
Alcohol might be a tough one to kick. It's so intertwined with social life I don't see it going away anytime soon.
I think it would be easy to think that soft drinks are going out of style if you're living in a tech bubble (like I probably am), but when you get outside of this circle you can see the massive amount of soft drinks that are still being consumed.
Obviously, the second part of that strategy is to create a range of products to cater to the kids like us not drinking their syrup.
A can of Coke has 33g of sugar.
(1) a can of coke varies in volume based on different places in the world. 330 ml in europe, 355 ml in north america.
(2) Sweetness of a can of coke varies by country. 10.6g sugar per 100ml in France, 11g sugar per 100ml in USA, 12g sugar per 100ml in Canada.
A canadian can of coke is 355ml and 42g of sugar, per the label printed on it.
A uk can of coke is 330ml and 35g of sugar.
Eg. USA has a 12oz can with 39 grams of sugar. UK has a 330ml can with 35 grams of sugar. (They aren't required to provide more precise accounting and so that 35 or 39 are rounded figures). These are close to the same.
Of course, if one is using 'coke' generically, there are many that have more than 40 grams. A 12oz can of A&W root beer is at 46 grams, as is a 12oz Mountain Dew.
I.e. "4 grams of sugar per 100ml of coke"
Also unit dosage for virtually all consumers is the unfortunately somewhat variable can.
39 g is far more representative of the overwhelmingly likely sugar consumption in the US than any per ml measure, and far more useful when discussing diets.
assuming you're in your 20s now... don't worry, by age 35 there's less explaining and less criticizing.
I was probably getting close to alcoholism myself and felt touchy around people that didn't drink (well, only the ones that announced it every chance they got, but then it feels like a judgement not a statement). I drank every day basically (and not ONE beer either), but when I went to moderate myself it wasn't too difficult; now I drink less than a handful of times a month.
I have a colleague who completely avoids alcohol. No particular reason for it other than one day he decided to do it because his friend wanted to do it. His friend didn't keep it up, but he did for ~30 years now. I have nothing for or against alcohol and I like some drinks now and then (mostly avoid beers, just don't like the taste).
I have to respect this guy that he keeps it up so long, even though he has nothing to gain or lose from it. I would have figured at least one day, what the heck, it's not a big deal, not doing anything bad or anything. But he decided he won't drink, so he doesn't. Mad respect.
Why do you feel a need to explain it? I've never had any reaction at all with 'no thanks, I'm good'. You don't have to say 'I'm on a diet' 'I don't drink' 'that crap will kill you' or anything else. Just no thanks. If someone does ask about your water, say 'I'm taking it easy' or 'I'm good'. Or get a club soda and lime.
Right now, there's too much "health noise" surrounding sodas, because they make so much money and so many people like them. We can't get a good "health signal" to "health noise" ratio to tell if these have healthy and/or unhealthy outcomes when we drink them. And so many of us just avoid them.
I also have friends who don't drink, including some when I was at university (a high time for most people's blood alcohol levels) - few people cared. Though my one suggestion to you is to drink something other than water, even if it's just club soda. Aside from anything else, getting something that costs money will likely make the pub staff friendlier.
Why are you so preoccupied with what people think about you?
Just get a glass of water. If they ask, say you don't drink. That will be the end of it. Trust me, you're not the only one. Many people don't drink soda/alcohol/etc.
> go explain that to people every time you are drinking water in a pub
That's like going to a whorehouse and saying you're abstinent. Of course people are going to give you weird looks.
Don't go to establishments that primarily serve alcohol. If you're going out with friends or co-workers, go to a establishment where the primary focus is on food. Then get yourself a glass of water.
Most people hate making decisions, including where to go. So speak up and tell them where to go.
I leave in Munich, Oktober Fest... a small beer here is 0.5L and you have biergartens everywhere. You definitely can push to go to restaurants or cafes, but the reality is just that many times you'll find yourself in an establishment that serves primarily alcohol.
You can go out only to sport, music, outdoor events. But then you'll hardly meet the same number of people and you'll restrict yourself to certain specific group where average is usually above 40.
I've heard that you eventually get used to them or even prefer them, but I've never gotten to that point.
Shrugs, public opinion and media's opinion is just that opinion not fact so is (to me..yay my opinion) irrelevant.
Nothing is safe in huge amounts but I'll take aspartame over sugar as the risk of diabetes is known.
On the other hand I think most people know drinking Cola is not good for your health.
Apparently being healthy is frowned upon for anyone who doesn't need it (semi-)professionally.
Then I started cutting back on pop so as not to experience caffeine withdrawal. Within a few weeks, I was down to one can a day. After two months, I lost 10 pounds, almost all because I stopped drinking so much pop.
It's pretty amazing how many calories and sugar pop has and how negatively it affects your body.
It is all about the glass shape, most people will assume you are having vodka soda.
drinking coke and pepsi contains no health or nutritional benefits - you ideally dont drink them ever (drink water or at least the diet version)
I've innovated - ask for lemonade cut with soda water. Fizzy lemonade!
Same goes if they think you're a food/diet nazi. Who cares? It's your body. They shouldn't be so judgmental of your life choices, especially something as personal as how you decide to fuel your body and stay alive. And if they are judging you, in my experience, it's usually because they're working through their own issues and would rather it not be pointed out how unhealthy their choices are, and they want you to join them in their maybe-not-so-great decisions.
Totally disagree, nobody cares if you have 2 beers vs 8 beers.
Unsweetened ice tea is a great flavorfull beverage with no calories and caffeine...
Admittedly, this is "Boozy Britain" though.
The 'I don't drink' part comes across to insecure people as judgemental or superior, so drop it.
They're not asking you for your convictions regarding alcohol / tobacco, they're asking you if want some / have a lighter they can use.
At any rate, you can answer why when they ask you why.
Despite their love of beer, I think that my health consciousness weighs on them... makes them feel a little guilty. Consequently, they make little comments about my lack of drinking. Harmless stuff, but my guess is that they're actually expressing disappointment in themselves.
I especially notice that when new people are with the group, the core members feel that they have to point out and explain that I only order water. So there's obviously some tension and discomfort there.
Right around when I got this, "Gold Peak" appeared in the supermarkets and that is so sweet it is sickening.
Companies are pure capitalistic enterprises that respond to market demand right? Right?
Just like apps are designed to be "engaging", ie. trigger the brain patterns where it will desire to return to the app, sodas are very much the same.
You can imagine if meth or other addictive drugs were legal thst they would be in our drinks (which is the exact history of Coke). Modern food engineering is about maximizing consumption, even at the detriment of those consuming.
I find it amazing that people think asking why you don't drink is acceptable, no one stops drinking for fun.
Tea also has the added benefit that if you make it per glass it forces you to get away from the computer for a few minutes. Plus the aromas and flavors are, in my opinion, more numerous and pleasant than all the sugary drinks out there combined. Tends to be noticeably cheaper too :)
You'll easily find half a dozen different teas you like ranging from the classic black teas to exotic varieties that taste like supermarket sugar drinks (like strawberry lemonade - one of my favorites at teavana). The latter usually require less a 5g bump of sugar to bring them to the level of retail drinks.
Try a craft beer or have a glass of wine.
A drink a day is good for you anyway.
Don't go to pub.
Pub: A public house where beverages, primarily alcoholic, may be bought and consumed.
That strikes to me as a fair compromise: we'll go to a place I don't like. I won't make a single comment on it, and in fact I'll be cheerful and happy, but in return you won't ask me to do the thing I don't like.
I went thru that back when I was young (once you have a herd of kids, you won't have time for adult socializing, so that kind of solves itself).
Anyway at least for an introverted young guy, I got way more than enough socializing at the gym (get drunk while lifting hundreds of pound weights, what could possibly go wrong LOL?) and hiking club (open container laws are enforced in our parks, maybe not all countries). I also met people at non-credit night classes while learning some carpentry, Japanese, cooking, religion, philosophy, history, whatever looked cool I'd sign up for ... I would imagine its much easier for young people now with online event organization for meetups and conferences and maker spaces.
I wonder how much people drink at maker spaces. I would imagine drunken table saw and metal working machine operators don't live very long. They seem to produce things and the injury rate seems low, so probably not very much.
Things get complicated if you're in one of those situations where friends work and socialize together. Super awkward, will never go back to that again. "Never cross the streams" - Ghostbusters
If one doesn't fancy drinking and if situation allows for this (i.e. they have a voice while discussing where to gather, not just invited to pre-agreed place) - at least they should suggest their friends to gather somewhere else. Some place that's not about drinking.
That is, if the place is still a subject of discussion, "Aw, guys, you know I'm not fond of drinking - how about some other place? I know a good cafe nearby..." is certainly not awkward.
And, well, sometimes it's not a bad option to decline sometimes, too. Depends on a particular company.
He is also extremely passionate about helping reduce obesity in South Carolina especially. One of the nicest and most honest people I've ever met.
*disclaimer, I've worked with him on startups combining exercise science and mobile apps.
It's funny how many scientific atheists sneer at the religious for their beliefs when there's so much corruption in their own ranks... and that's coming from someone who'd rather believe in science than any form of organized religion...
I'm not keen on using the word science like it's some sort of faith that you choose to passively agree or passively disagree with. You shouldn't have faith in science or institutions based on science, because that is antithetical to the whole premise of science.
Science is a methodology and framework for investigating the world around you. There are broadly accepted scientific bodies of work, but they're supposed to be continually tested and verified and challenged. You're not supposed to accept studies or peer reviewed papers at face value. You're not even supposed to accept the current body of knowledge as fact. Even the most tested laws are just theories where the error bars are very small. Don't get me wrong, laws should be respected, but until the margin of error becomes 0, it can be challenged. We award the Nobel Prize to people who have convincingly challenged the current body of science. Einstein isn't revered because he sealed Newton's laws as immutable truths. We revere him because he added dimension and new ideas that we could test and explore.
Companies and institutions have been undermining science with self-serving research, press releases and books since the beginning. People will always execute scientific research poorly and others will always do despicable things to undermine it. Fortunately, scientific thinking comes with some error correction mechanisms. They're not perfect and sometimes it takes longer than we'd like, but typically our body of knowledge gets better over time. Nutrition in particular is a very difficult subject to study, so it's especially ripe for junk science. I suspect as our tools for research get better, our knowledge of nutrition will get better.
Science doesn't work when people accept a scientific body with faith. Faith has no place in science, because faith teaches people to accept ideas without challenging them. We want each generation of scientists to question every link in the chain of arguments, so they can add testable theories and new dimension to today's "infallible" theories.
If you want to reinvigorate your "faith in science", start by changing your expectations about science. The scientific method is a great tool, but it doesn't solve the problems of corruption and incompetence. Practicing science is messy and error fraught, propagating accurate scientific knowledge can be incredibly slow. It's always been this way, but if we persist, sometimes we get really lucky and we're inundated with new knowledge and insights, better tools, and lots of testable ideas.
Also, I'd recommend going here and looking at the FDA's proposal on labeling %DV for added sugars: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocuments...
Keep drinking soft drink, exercise more = more money for both industries.
I don't think they care about difference in willpower, only money. They will say almost anything to get it from you.
> "The children did 64% more PE at the second school. But when they got home they did the reverse. Those who had had the activity during the day flopped and those who hadn't perked up, and if you added the in-school and out-of-school together you got the same. From which we concluded that physical activity is controlled by the brain, not by the environment – if you're given a big opportunity to exercise at one time of day you'll compensate at another."
Combine that with the meta study that showed exercise was not something to take up as part of a weight reduction regime http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/... and you can begin to understand how important it is that Coca Cola need to push this message.
The reality is, added sugar products need taxation which is then ring-fenced to support healthy eating education and healthy transport schemes (Walking, cycling and public transport). We need to recognise that added sugar, in particular fructose, has to be treated on the same level as smoking is.
Ok but the insulin does subside and you do use the fat created from fructose provided you aren't eating a caloric surplus. There may be minor differences but calling any macro or micronutrient category "bad" is missing the forest for the trees. There is quite simply no way he gained nearly 20 lbs in a little over a month without significant increasing his calorie intake or decreasing his calorie output.
> The reality is, added sugar products need taxation which is then ring-fenced to support healthy eating education and healthy transport schemes (Walking, cycling and public transport). We need to recognise that added sugar, in particular fructose, has to be treated on the same level as smoking is.
The reality is that sugar is completely healthy for many people, and that the idea that sugar is "poison" is completely incorrect. It's dose dependent, like any other food. If you are sitting around all day doing nothing and you eat a lot of sugar you will gain unhealthy body mass, but for many atheletes, for instance, sugars are an extremely important part of performance quality. Protein or fat when eaten in excess will also make you fat. What separates sugar from cigarettes is that there are doses at which sugar is completely fine (even good) for you, and there is no dose at which a cigarette is good for you.
The amount you eat isn't a function of how many calories are in the food, but how hungry you feel (assuming that the willpower you can put into fighting against your hunger is constant). Therefore the best foods to eat would be the ones with the largest "satiety load" per calorie, and I'm pretty sure high GI is inversely correlated with that
One, it is not a "meta study"; it is an editorial. One which provoked an almost immediate contrary response from other doctors, both mentioned in the very article you posted and in the BJSM.
Two, Malhotra's editorial does not say "exercise was not something to take up as part of a weight reduction regime". It said exercise doesn't contribute to weight loss. It specifically said exercise reduces the risk of numerous conditions that are frequently comorbid with obesity.
I'm on a low sugar (not low carb) and no sweetener lifestyle as I find sugar makes me crash and feel very sleepy.
And there's also now a great documentary on Netflix called "Fed Up" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCUbvOwwfWM), for anyone who has a subscription. It particularly tackles this silly idea that it's okay to eat and drink shitty food all day, so long as you exercise for a little bit too.
I think the real problem is capitalism. It makes good economic sense to sell your customers too much food. Consider Starbucks. Your parents' coffee and a donut was a 250-300 calorie breakfast. Today's latte and a scone is double that and yields a much nicer profit margin.
It's not so much processed foods - obviously you can have processed foods which are healthy too. But if people with very unhealthy diets cut out the kinds of processed foods they eat it would probably go a long way towards making them healthier.
And you're right that capitalism is the root cause - the incentives are skewed towards making foods more addictive and moreish, to help with sales, which leads to making them worse for us. Big food companies even have labs to help them optimise this: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary...
The result of eating these foods are very high glucose levels in the blood + insulin levels which interferes with metabolic signaling. Insulin tells your body to store glucose as fat. Insulin inhibits leptin receptor signalling which means your brain loses the ability to sense how much fat your body is carrying around.
Fructose in large amounts is hepatotoxic, just like alcohol. In fact for the same metabolic reason as alcohol.
"Food science" has advanced to the point where companies explicitly try to hack tastebuds and desire receptors (dorritos optimizing for salty+sweet to induce more hunger while you eat) thereby increasing desire for their product and, they hope, reducing self-action of restraint towards their product.
The old time coke bottles where 8 fl oz (.23 liters). Then cans at 12 oz. Now the single serve bottles are typically 20 oz (.6 liter)
I was in NYC which labels calories in restaurants. Was a little bit of an eye opener. oversize bagels and muffins making breakfast approach half your daily caloric intake.
OT1H, it shouldn't matter who writes something if it holds up to scrutiny.
OTOH, no system, no matter the safeguards, can withstand constant attempts to subvert it by ordinary members. The scientific process can stop sporadic fraud, but not deliberate fraud by the majority of participants.
OT3rdH, it's also playing with fire to tell an organization it can't defend itself, even against a scientific consensus, by bankrolling research that tends to favor itself. I for one wish we would have had more of that from Big Fat to resist the "less fat, more carbs" dogma we heard for decades.
Case A: the school already had this research happening. Coke saw the research could help their arguments and decided to pay them to do more of their already existing projects.
Case B: Coke started from a marketing perspective, interviewed scientists at different universities, then commissioned the studies and created the departments themselves using the "shadow funding."
I very much doubt that a series of studies, if valid, and even if funded by Coke, is "skewing" the amount of evidence.
It's common knowledge that fitness is dependent on diet and exercise. I don't see much wrong with a corporate entity producing legitimate science that happens to support their product (if that's the case here), especially in a maternalistic society like the US, that wants to "ban" things like soft drinks for "the good" of the populace.
That is a problem with the (non-scientific) media and not the scientific process or press.
Perhaps their should very basic study on general health/weight of people who regularly consume refined sugars and those who abstain from refined sugar (with neither group engaging in structured exercise. Or have these scientists answer a more basic question about obesity...all things being equal, if you took a person (whether they exercise or not) would that person be more likely to be obese if they consumed a 200 calorie soda every day or replaced the soda with 200 calories of almonds. I think people would be greatly surprised to find out a calorie is not simply a calorie as is often suggested and that sugar has a lot more impact on obesity than fats.
I would be throughly shocked considering everything I have read is to the contrary. The much more likely issue is the soda drinker would feel compelled to eat/drink something sugary after a short period where as the person eating almonds would be satisfied. Interestingly you touch on this with your rat experiment and then somehow come to the conclusion "calorie is not a calorie".
In the end a calorie is a calorie in terms of the potential to expand your waistline, but a calorie is not a calorie in terms of putting the fork down and feeling satisfied. Maybe I misunderstood and that was your point.
"No connection with Fructose and obesity"
Sponsored by the Canadian sugarinstitute
who is owned by: Coca Cola and Pepsi co and corn producers.
Just because some people can not resist and drink responsibly, why should the company take the blame?
Having too much of almost everything is bad for you, am i missing something here?
They don't explain how their products and accompanying advertising are designed to subvert our logical minds by appealing to our biological desires.
Their techniques have been honed over time and have become rather powerful. Over-consuming may not be a problem for you but not everyone is so resilient.
It's not my field, but I suspect that the only original research left to be done examines other potential causes. There's lots of good work on the Microbiome, for example.
Can someone from the field tell me, if they had a big fund to counter-balance the bias caused by Coca-Cola, what original research it would fund?
Same thing with most crap people eat every day.
I'm not against processed foods per se, the increase in food safety and storage time makes sense.
Now, people make meal-sized (calory-wise) snacks by stuffing a bag of Doritos in between meals, eating a whole pack of Oreos, or just eating unbalanced (usually both micro and macronutrient unbalanced) meals etc
I've also noted folks who spend significant time on both in big cities with public transport, and also significant time in car-centric cities, their weight fluctuates appropriately (about 15% less weight when decent public transport is available).
I live on the south coast of the UK and I take the bus to work and then walk home in the evening, takes about an hour. It's pretty pleasant and a good way to both process the day and move around a little. I feel far better when I walk home than when I used to take the bus.
It's actually one thing I'm slightly bugged by as I'm getting ready to move to the bay area for a year. I don't want to buy or lease a car. I haven't actually wanted or needed a car since getting my licence.
It certainly isn't Coca-Cola's fault.
The level of blame-shifting in our society is amazing.
The NYC Dept of Health estimates that 30% of adult New Yorkers have one sugar-added beverage per day. 20 years ago there were 10oz bottle in vending machines, then 12oz cans, now also 20oz bottles, thus, those consuming a bottle a day today now consume 52 lbs of sugar per year compared with 26 lbs 20 or so years ago.
Many of the poor (and others) have no idea how many sugar calories they are consuming each year when they drink Coke and other sugar-added beverages.
Besides tobacco use, obesity and lack of exercise is one of the major contributors to our increased health care costs.
The previous NY Mayor, Bloomberg, tried to have a state tax on sugar-added beverages passed which is what is recommended by public health officials such as the CDC but that was turned down. Then he lobbied the Federal Government to not allow food stamps to be used for sugar-added beverages but that was turned down. Then the health dept. tried to ensure that in venues where they had control that sugar-added beverages would have a 16oz size limit, but they lost in court.
Ironically, the land for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which is located in Atlanta, Georgia was donated by none other than The Coca Cola Company.
Portion sizes for everything are so incredibly out of whack; it's ridiculous. If you convince people people that a 3 gallon smoothie is "regular" size, you move more product and make more money - who cares if everyone gets fat as a side effect.
Best thing to do is start using an app like LoseIt or MyFitnessPal like a total maniac and start observing your exact dietary intake. Use a food scale!!!
You'll start to notice where you're going wrong each day, and can spot trends after a few months. It's worth the hassle.
At the end of the day, calories are still most linked to your weight, which is your first and foremost problem. Your body composition can then be further aided by a proper macronutrient ratio (ie more protein), and of course general health with proper fruit and vegetable intake.
That's the trifecta of dieting:
* Caloric monitoring / maintenance / sub-maintenance
* High Protein
* High Veggie and Fruit
After that, let the carbs and fats fall where they may, whatever works best for you. Just note that it's easiest to do one or the other (low-fat or low-carb), but not impossible to be balanced if you're tracking well.
removing sodas (and other corn syrup stuff) is amazing step, what about a bit more movement? try walk, start with shorter, make them longer over time. find something to enjoy on these changes, that helps motivation a lot.
be persistent, don't make petty excuses why to skip it, and give it all a bit of time. learn to enjoy sweat - it means you're doing something good for yourself ;)
Check "That Sugar Film": http://thatsugarfilm.com/
One area that could "help" (though at the same time I don't think that governments should regulate this), is for instance in the fast food meal concept of the "combo." I drink almost 100% water, and don't like soft drinks. When I occasionally eat fast food, I experience the following: (a) it is often difficult to navigate the menu, since it emphasizes the combos, and sometimes the price of individual items are not clearly labelled, and (b) I spend more time in line explaining what I want, sometimes having to insist several times that I do not want the combo meal. And to clarify, almost every time I've done the math, it works out advantageously from a price perspective for me to avoid the combo instead of just purchasing the combo and requesting water as the beverage. But given this experience, I can see how if you weren't dedicated to drinking water you would concede, and once you've paid for a drink, you "might as well" get a soft drink.
I'm also quite surprised at how frequently I run into situations at airports, food courts, sports venues, etc. where you either (a) the only form of water is bottled water and costs as much or more than soft drinks, (b) you can purchase a cup of water, but it costs you as much as a soft drink, or (c) in the most extreme cases water is not even available for consumption even if one wanted to pay. I recently experienced the latter. So perhaps if we were going to regulate something, perhaps it should be ensuring that all food establishments provide water as a beverage, and furthermore if we want to encourage consumption of water perhaps there should be some form of price cap, for instance that it can't be priced more than X% of cost to provide the "service." Though I typically think that regulation should be kept minimal, this may be something that could be good for the public.
Is this a new thing in the big university scam? Trade a substantive (yet probably middling in actuality) "brand", propped up by big-time sports as a legitimate academic institution (although primarily being a degree stamper and alcoholic post-highschool baby sitter), take money, produce study?
I've heard of specious sponsored research before, but not in "major" institutions like these.
- increased car ownership
- lower cost of food, allowing binging (people could not afford meat all week)
- shifting nature of work. most jobs now are done in a sitting position of some sort, hard manual labor is getting rare.
now add medicine that allows you to sustain the obese lifestyle, from statins to insulin, and you can let your body go without much consequence (for a while).
and hell, forget the soft drinks. go to any cheap place in the US and everything is sugar-glaced. Try ordering something healthy from Panda Express, etc. And even traditional stuff like Ribs - put on that sweet BBQ sauce.
combine ALL the above and you might have an explanation of rising obesity. pretty sure it is not a simple equation, it never is.
Yes a country's transport policy has an impact. Netherlands has an obesity rate of 1.6% in boys vs 16% in the UK. So getting your kids cycling/walking to school is of massive benefit to the long-term health of your nation.
You still need to deal with the wrong type of calories being delivered into your population.
They are way better than any soft drink. Even if you pick the fruit with the most fructose/glucose percentage you still get the benefit of slower digestion due to fibers which slow digestion. Slight exaggeration, but in comparison, drinks are almost an injection of sugar into the blood-stream.
I would consider them healthy if they are ingested in appropriate quantities, without any added sugars, and along with some additional food that is rich with protein and fibers, like wheat and grains.
What is your definition of "rarely"?
What an absolutely ridiculous statement.
Some of the ones who fought the "smoking isn't bad" action went on, after that was finally buried, to work for the "climate change isn't happening" front.
Tends to work in the exact same way as this is. Create a reasonable sounding front outfit ("Global Energy Balance Network" in this case), and throw money at the small handful of scientists you can find who will oppose the consensus. Use your money and media contacts to get their views far more publicity than they deserve, creating the illusion of a large body of dissenting scientists. Take advantage of current media belief that "balance" means you have to provide airtime to some crazy kook to oppose any view, and hold off the inevitable for as long as possible.