"If you can't demonstrate that I'm wrong don't accuse me of demonstrably wrong bullshit. You should apologize for that. The point of the law is to reduce obesity, not magic strawman solve everything. The law doesn't work, it is a bad law. Soda consumption is down nationally without feel-good authoritarian idiocy. Tobacco use is down without bans. People don't need more drug war style bullshit laws that supporters can't actually demonstrate work."
"Cool! We just need to find somebody who can be trusted with the reins.
(Literally nobody can be trusted with reins.)"
Background: Large portions of food may contribute to excess energy intake and greater obesity. However, data on the effects of portion size on food intake in adults are limited.
Objectives: We examined the effect of portion size on intake during a single meal. We also investigated whether the response to portion size depended on which person, the subject or the experimenter, determined the amount of food on the plate.
Design: Fifty-one men and women were served lunch 1 d/wk for 4 wk. Lunch included an entrée of macaroni and cheese consumed ad libitum. At each meal, subjects were presented with 1 of 4 portions of the entrée: 500, 625, 750, or 1000 g. One group of subjects received the portion on a plate, and a second group received it in a serving dish and took the amount they desired on their plates.
Results: Portion size significantly influenced energy intake at lunch (P [less than] 0.0001). Subjects consumed 30% more energy (676 kJ) when offered the largest portion than when offered the smallest portion. The response to the variations in portion size was not influenced by who determined the amount of food on the plate or by subject characteristics such as sex, body mass index, or scores for dietary restraint or disinhibition.
Conclusions: Larger portions led to greater energy intake regardless of serving method and subject characteristics. Portion size is a modifiable determinant of energy intake that should be addressed in connection with the prevention and treatment of obesity.
The videotape data for the serving dish group showed that the total number of spoonfuls taken from the serving dish did not differ significantly across conditions of portion size. Subjects served themselves a mean of 7 times regardless of the amount of food in the serving dish. Thus, as the portion presented in the dish increased, subjects took a significantly greater amount per serving spoonful (P [less than] 0.05). By calculation, the mean amount per spoonful was 49 ± 3, 52 ± 3, 64 ± 7, and 55 ± 3 g in the 500-, 625-, 750-, and 1000-g conditions, respectively. Subjects in the serving-dish group left some plate waste in only 15% of their meals; the amount ranged from 2 to 34 g. Thus, after these subjects served the food onto their plates, they left very little of it uneaten.
"Marketplace food portions have increased in size and now exceed federal standards. Portion sizes began to grow in the 1970s, rose sharply in the 1980s, and have continued in parallel with increasing body weights."
"The prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased sharply among US adults and children in recent years.1–3 Although multiple factors can account for weight gain, the basic cause is an excess of energy intake over expenditure. If, as has been reported, activity patterns have not changed much in the past decade,4,5 the rise in body weights must be caused by increased energy intake. Indeed, dietary intake surveys indicate a per capita increase of 200 kcal/d from 1977–19786 to 1994–1996,7 and the US food supply (total food produced, less exports, plus imports) now provides 500 kcal/d per capita more than in the 1970s.8 Regardless of how imprecise such figures may be, they appear to confirm that Americans consume more energy than they did in the past."
"Obviously, larger portions provide more calories. A 2.1-oz Butterfingers candy bar contains 270 kcal, whereas the 5.0-oz “Beast” supplies 680 kcal. The 7-Eleven Double Gulp, a 64-oz soda, contains nearly 800 kcal—an amount 10 times the size of a Coca-Cola when it was introduced40 and calorically equivalent to more than one third of the energy requirement of large segments of the population.41 Increased consumption of fast foods contributes to increased caloric intake;42 this problem could well be made worse by the “supersizing” of menu items.43 In the mid-1950s, McDonald's offered only 1 size of french fries; that size is now considered “Small” and is one third the weight of the largest size available in 2001. Today's “Large” weighs the same as the 1998 “Supersize,” and the 2001 “Supersize” weighs nearly an ounce more. Since 1999, a McDonald's “Supersize” soda is nearly one third larger than the “Large.” Notably, the sizes of chain fast-food portions in Europe are smaller than those in the United States. McDonald's “Extra Large” soda portions in London, Rome, and Dublin weigh the same as the US “Large.” In 1998–1999, the largest order of french fries in the United States contained 610 calories,44 whereas the largest size in the United Kingdom contained 446 calories.45"
"Viewing problems such as obesity or lack of financial planning without careful scrutiny of powerful industries or the social components of health disparities is short-sited and victim-blamey. To then use this as justification to take away individual's personal freedom "for their own good" ignores the root of these systemic issues. But hey, it's a whole lot easier than tackling the food industry or trying to change capitalism."
"Minimum wage laws, OSHA, FDA, those aren't paternalism. Those aren't restrictions imposed from above. Those are societal rules and regulations that people fought and died for."
"Not a big fan of smoking, but murder? Please."
In good University of Chicago fashion, Sunstein prefers market-like incentives to get businesses to behave themselves and consumers to optimize their well-being. This process is described as "libertarian paternalism," another characteristically Sunstein oxymoron meaning subtle government interventions that prompt consumers to make the decisions they would voluntarily choose if they were as smart as he is.
Sunstein's latest book, Nudge, co-authored with University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler, observes that ordinary people make ill-informed financial choices because they lack adequate time or knowledge or because the deck has often been stacked in favor of bad consumer decisions by self-serving merchants. There are really two kinds of people, Sunstein and Thaler puckishly write, "Econs" and "Humans." Econs are the hyper-rational creatures imagined by University of Chicago economists. Humans are the rest of us. Econs, somehow with infinite time, carefully weigh every economic decision. Humans decide on the fly and make systematic mistakes. By using public regulation not to dictate outcomes but to alter "choice architectures," enlightened government can help consumers to make better decisions, both for their own well-being and to discipline producers. Thus does libertarian paternalism make markets work better.
Second, coercive measures must be effective rather than futile. Prohibition didn’t work, and officials shouldn’t adopt strategies that fail.
Conly’s most controversial claim is that because the health risks of smoking are so serious, the government should ban it. She is aware that many people like to smoke, that a ban could create black markets, and that both of these points count against a ban. But she concludes that education, warnings, and other nudges are insufficiently effective, and that a flat prohibition is likely to be justified by careful consideration of both benefits and costs, including the costs to the public of treating lung cancer and other consequences of smoking.
The kind of world where soda companies are free to manipulate our satiety response to their own ends as exploitatively as they damn well please is a shittier place to live than the kind of world where they aren't.
A basic misconception has stymied our response to the obesity epidemic: the belief that food-related decisions are consciously and deliberately made. Our reluctance to interfere with or regulate the food environment is a direct consequence of the belief that people's food choices reflect their true desires. However, given the large proportion of people who claim that they want to lose weight and the small proportion who are actually able to do so, we must concede that human behavior doesn't always conform with professed goals.
The reality is that food choices are often automatic and made without full conscious awareness. In many cases, they may even be the opposite of what the person deciding would consciously prefer. What and how much people eat are highly influenced by contextual factors that they may not recognize and therefore cannot easily resist.
Since mankind are not yet prepared for socialism and democracy, they must go through a period of discipline under state capitalism and fascism. Hence, state capitalism and fascism are inevitable. And because they are inevitable, history is entirely on the side of state capitalism and fascism. History speaks a language so clear and distinct that only the intellectually blind and the morally degenerate can fail to see the signs of the times.--A Program for Jews and Humanity / Harry Waton
Although many nutritionists and dietitians agree diet soda is just as unhealthy as regular soft drinks, they are commonly marketed to be a healthy alternative to sugary colas, and to many, diet is an alternative they say they cannot live without.
A high-sugar diet is not sufficient to produce obesity and other disorders of affluence in humans adhering to a mostly traditional diet and lifestyle, particularly if the sugar is coming from unrefined sources such as fresh fruit. This is consistent with other reports of beneficial weight loss in people eating a whole food diet centered around fruit (4).
That being said, I think everyone can agree that added sugar almost certainly plays a role in obesity and disease in affluent societies such as the US. Added sugars increase the energy density, seductiveness and palatability of foods, favoring fat gain. In large amounts, refined fructose-containing foods such as added sugar can also promote harmful metabolic changes. However, controlled diet trials have shown that this applies mostly in the context of excess calorie intake (which, to be fair, is the typical dietary context in the US).
The broader point is that added sugar is part of a dietary pattern that also includes added fats, flavorings, refined and engineered foods in general. This pattern includes the fact that foods are easier to obtain than ever before, often require no work to prepare, and advertising and our cultural milieu encourage overeating. And that’s not even getting into the differences in lifestyle patterns such as physical activity and sleep between traditional cultures and our own, which also play an important role.
"To be fair, it's not like they're leaving milk alone either."
« Older As you know Bob, the Dutch have long known how to ... | Following a parent-governor me... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt