LetsRun.com is Officially Against the Soda (ang Gatorade and Tea) Tax: Join With Us

wejo wrote:

I don't want the government telling what to eat especially with a product where the link to health problems is very remote. Is the government going to soon tax how many calories I eat or put a tax on desserts? Why don't we tax ice cream as well?

Let's tax fat people who don't run while we're at it.

Where will it stop? I love fast food, you might love lasagna or steak. What about brownies or desserts?

Fallacious!

You Are What You Is wrote:

I've spent a good portion of my day marveling over this statement. The pure self-centeredness! The selfishness! The narcissism! It's astounding.

All they care about is themselves. They have given zero thought to what is good for our great nation, and couldn't care less about people who might be different from them. If you think differently than them, if you are different from them, they don't want to hear from you. The only people who are important is themselves. It's so creepy.

You are the one that has it all wrong.

You Are What You Is wrote:

. If you think differently than them, if you are different from them, they don't want to hear from you.

It's just the opposite. We are for freedom. We don't want the govt telling people how to eat. Imagine if you have some obscure belief and are forced to give it up by the govt.

We are protecting the little guy by saying, "Mind your own business."

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

NJ Possible wrote:

FACT: 1-2 soft drinks every day increases a person's chance to get type 2 diabetes by 26%. FACT: it's even higher in children.

These are not "facts" in the way that you mean it. I am sure you have posted a study (if so, do so again, I will read it) that *ESTIMATES* this is the increased risk. Other studies might contradict this. This is an estimate.

If you cite published research with a huge sample size from an accredited source, you're permitted to reference that as proof and truth:

But frankly this idiotic thread has much more to do with the naive and insecure laypeople in adamant belief that the US gov't has nothing better to do than tell them everything to do. Get over yourselves and your perverted sense of freedom. The gov't recognizes, as do most educated people, that we pay through the nose for unnecessary healthcare because people put garbage in their bodies. If you pay taxes and pay health insurance, you should be happy with a soda tax because the product is complete sh*t and we pay for the absurd health care costs stemming from consuming it.

Even the jokers that run this site have college degrees and think because they aren't fat that the sugar drinks they consume don't affect them. Type 2 Diabetes does not care what your waist size is or how many miles you run. If you consume soft drinks each day, the chance of getting it goes up tremendously. Tax the sh*t out of it.

NJ Possible wrote:

I really wish people would look things up before posting. Your comment may make rational sense to you but is baseless and false information. FACT: 1-2 soft drinks every day increases a person's chance to get type 2 diabetes by 26%. FACT: it's even higher in children. And every one of us will pay for it in our insurance and taxes. So stop pretending this is some freedom issue when we're all in this sh*t together anyway.

What absolute horse manure! There are 17.4 million habits that people have that are less than ideal for their health. What we really, REALLY need is a great big nanny following us around everywhere and telling us what to do and what not to do.

Do you folks even have the slightest concept of freedom?

"Oh yes, you are free to live your life exactly as I say so in order that I don't have to pay for anything 'extra' as it relates to you."

I almost think you folks can't be serious.

First off, you should be glad you're in a state that doesn't tax a silly thing as soda...(however, I have a different opinion on whether you should drink sodas) but it doesn't matter in this case. You have the right to drink whatever you want. I don't think sodas alone will cause obesity in America, I think Berkeley and San Fran want another excuse for the community to continue to pay for the high cost of living...no?

rojo wrote:Imagine if you have some obscure belief and are forced to give it up by the govt.

Nonsensical statement. What is the "obscure belief"?

I don't care that the founders of this website aren't Einstein, but their attitude is disappointing.

I was going to vote against the 2% tax in sf but after reading this threat I decided to vote for it.

finder of solutions wrote:

Here's a proposal LRC can get behind. Add to food and beverage labels how many miles you have to run to burn off the calories consumed. Example:

Double Whopper with Cheese: 990 Calories

You must run:

6 miles at D1 Ivy Leaguer, future millionaire pace

7.5 miles a local sub elite pace

8 miles at D3 girls pace

9 miles at Hobby Jogger pace

10 miles at ultra marathon hiker pace

15 miles at the Parvesh fata$$ marathon walker cheater pace

Why does the amount of miles change from pace to pace?

NJ Possible wrote:

FACT: 1-2 soft drinks every day increases a person's chance to get type 2 diabetes by 26%. ...

If you cite published research with a huge sample size from an accredited source, you're permitted to reference that as proof and truth:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20693348

.

Well, I will give you that it is a pretty good study. Also, other studies I looked at tend to produce similar numbers. So yes, it is a reasonable claim. I only was disputing your use of the definitive "FACT" claim with an absolute # attached to it. The study shows a "significant association." And if you read the study, there are lots of "weaknesses", caveats, confounders and "what-ifs." (as there always is) That doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile study. It just means: it's not an ABSOLUTE FACT that drinking 1-2 soft drinks a day will make one 26% more like to get T2D.

I would state it differently: there are a lot of good studies that suggest that high consumption of sugar sweetened beverages leads to obesity and T2D. Now whether or not getting those particular high consumers to *solely* cut down on sugar sweetened beverages (let's say via a tax increase or serving size limit) will have a huge impact on the nations obesity and T2D problem is another matter. Many of them might replace those calories with others, and will likely still remain sedentary (i.e, remain fat). However, the studies I've read suggest it (getting high soda consumers to cut down) would at least have a small impact, and a small impact is better than none.

Read this a you will some actual human biology vs overs-implied solutions. I had a massive post which I was writing which basically went into detail a lot of the nutrition problems and solutions but accidentally clicked back and it got deleted.

Anyhow sugar does not cause diabetes directly. It is eating surplus calories that causes diabetes. The main problem for sugar in healthy people is tooth decay and possibly not allowing for enough micro nutrients, though with someone with high energy expenditure this is not usally a problem ie thousand cals of sugar drink out of 6,000 cals v small women who only needs 1200 cals, leaves only 200 cals for veg, protein etc.

Like anything in life people seem to take extreme views, either let me drink a gallon of soda a day or any small amount whatever the context it is evil it is excluding the middle, there are discussions like this over other health things like, carbs (carbs are everything-no they are evil-depends on situation-insulin resistant sedentary person v rower expending 10,000 cals a day 6hour training regime, grains (great for some people good source of carbs etc some people with autominone disease not so good ie celiac etc, saturated fats (depends on person, genetics, activity level etc, cardio (any cardio will make your muscles shrivel up bs from the weightlifting people, to do 2 hours a day to stay lean etc).

Anyway how the body works is that after alcohol and protein, carbs are always preferentially oxidised (burned off) over fats. When you eat sugar effectively glucose and fructose it is either processed as glycogen and then the rest is oxidised for energy, in calorie equilibrium there is no problem metabolically what so ever, everything is burnt off and nothing is hanging around in the blood stream. Put some who's expenditure is 2,000 cals a day and make them eat some protein and fat, vits ect and the rest pure table sugar to 2,000 cals and you will not get diabetes it's not how it works. The problem arises when too many calories are taken in, when there is excess calories and due to lack of exercise the glycogen stores will be full, then the sugar will be burned off to meet energy requirements, however as you have eaten over energy requirements there is still sugar flowing around the bloodstream but since the muscles are already full and your body has taken the required sugar for energy requirements the body tries to produce more insulin to compensate causing insulin resistance, it is also in combination to due excess fatty acids flowing around the blood as they are not being burned off due to the excess calorie and sugar taking priority in being burned. Basically it's not the sugar it's the excess cals, if you were to eat a zero sugar diet but over energy requirments the same thing happens with the fat and carbs, think people eating diet coke (zero sugar) and long term overeating what would happen is when you eat your burger or fries the carbs which are complex and broken down into glucose same thing happens, you get the idea. In European countries where diabetes are on rise as well but it is not as common to eat large fizzy drinks, originally it was blamed on the sugar but looking at studies it now apparent that people on average in places like the Uk actually eat less sugar now than there grandparents did but their fat intake has massively increased and thus their calorie consumption. So really it shouldn't be blaming just the big gulp or whatever it is but portion sizes. The questions are why people are overeating are complex but for many people it is becuase the food is made very tasty. However it has been found that when active (has to reasonably vigourous ie jogging minumum not walking which is so often promoted) food is no longer as appealing as it once was as the exercise provided an increase in serototin/dopamine levels that often people will seek out in food, hence comfort eating etc. For me running is effective at bringing me to lean weight not so much from the calorie expenditure but more from making my appetite levels to the correct levels and increasing insulin sentisit noticably that when eating foods like frosties I actually feel full. I actually vary my diet quite drastically from when I am running to when I am injured and has helped to avoid weight gain. This often what happens to Kenyan runners when they retire, though a lot I think is due to binge eating when they drunk. Also aerobic excerise at highish levels if often an appetite suppresent and think running is the most effective one and a theory of mine is it due to the wobbling of stomach in transit, as we are the leanest endurance athletes.

The reason sugar can cause diabetes is like I said it's due to surplus calories, for many people liquid sugar calories are absorbed very quickly through the intestine and don't register fully with the brain and people don't compensate their energy intake and so end up overeating thus causing the diabetes in people prone to diabetes. It can be argued that eating a high fat low carb (sugars and complex carbs it's the same as diet when overeating may be better for diabetes as at least there is not competition between oxidation of sugars and fats and therefore things are not hanging around as much in the blood stream causing the insulin resistance. However people shouldn't be overeating, when not overeating the body is very clever and will operate on all ranges of macronutrient percentages and everything either is stored or oxidised and there are no problems.

As I was saying with the sugar drinks not making people this makes a big different how insulin sensitive you are and a big part is having by exercising you are providing a place for the sugar to go hence increased insulin sensitivy ie after a long run you stores are empty pile in the sugars and they are all stored. For example when I am active I can eat fruit juices and they fill me up, when I don't run they don't. Often so called naturally thin people are more sensitive liquid calories, hence why drink soda and don't get fat.

When I am active I can drink sugary drinks and they are filling, for some people they are necessary to help meet energy requirements and an easy way to get carbs in. There are some rowers with such high energy requirements that there nutritionalists instructed them to melt ice cream into a liquid and drink as it was physically impossible to eat the required calories, that is pure sugar and fat but no one is getting diabetes becuase their sinks (glycogen stores) are not full and they are eating within calorie requirements so when glycogen stores are full the rest of the sugar and fat is oxidised. It may be worth noting that we are in constant state of fat storage and burning ie when that rowing drinks that whole tub of ben and jerries the sugar will be dealt with fist and thus as fat is lower on the oxidisation hierarchy it will be stored however late on in the day and part of energy requirements it will be burned off hence back to equilibrium.

For certain people the so called healthy eating guidlines are not practical, this gets back to the point of the goverment telling me what I should do, it depends on the situation. For example fibre if I was to eat only wholegrains (a new law may be introduced to tax so called unhealthy white carbs) (another myth white versions are exactly the same as wholegrains just with less fibre and nutrients but if eaten with veg and meat lets say, you are not missing out on anything and they are not unhealthy-also there's a lot of talk about empty cals ie food with only macronutients and no micronutrients but once your requirments for micros are fulfilled it doesn't matter if the food is so called empty as you fulfilling your macro requirments) with a requirments of 800carbs a day I would get too much fibre. A lot of Kenyan runners are eating over 50 teaspoons of sugar a day in their teas (200g sugar) plus other sugars like honey, fruits etc. A large percentage of my carbs come from sugar (I drink my tea Kenyan style with 5 teaspoons and eat a lot of white bread drowned in honey and I often drink fruit juices after runs, without sugar there would be no way I could eat enough or enough. Like I said earlier the main problem with sugar is in the mouth, once it's in your stomach there's no problem, though saying that too much fructose can cause stomach upsets but lots of glucose is no problem.

Post of the week for sure. I nearly spat out my 500ml soda reading this.never worn a singlet (they don't fit)

wejo wrote:

Oaklandia-one final plea.

I still think LRCers should be against the soda tax.

Imagine how much the fatboy coworker would have beaten the LRC poster in the 5k by if he didn't drink soda and wasn't fat?

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6087884

If the soda tax passes, obesity rates will drop, the LRC posters will start getting drilled in races by formerly fat runners. Their morale will decline and who knows what other bad outcomes will result.

LRCers it is in your own self interest to keep the rest of America fat. Please vote NO on all soda taxes. Otherwise you will no longer be special and beating your co workers in races.

In San Francisco, it will take a 66 2/3% vote for the proposition to become law.

Early returns (9:25 pm Pacific) have it evenly split:

http://www.sfelections.org/results/20141104/index.php#a_english_54

wejo wrote:

Where will it stop? I love fast food, you might love lasagna or steak. What about brownies or desserts?

Yes, and what about cigarettes?? What if we taxed those???

Please explain, anyone, why taxing sugar-sweetened beverages is different from taxing cigarettes, which has been accepted for years?

actual logic wrote:

wejo wrote:

Where will it stop? I love fast food, you might love lasagna or steak. What about brownies or desserts?

Yes, and what about cigarettes?? What if we taxed those???

Please explain, anyone, why taxing sugar-sweetened beverages is different from taxing cigarettes, which has been accepted for years?

1) Sugar is one of the basic foods that naturally fuel the human body. One might well argue that some foods/drinks have "too much" sugar relative to other ingredients to be considered "healthy". But there is no question that sugar is a natural part of a healthy human diet. The same can not be said of cigarette smoke.

2) Sugar is consumed by those who choose to consume it. Cigarette smoke is consumed not only by those who choose to consume it but by many others in their vicinity.

These are differences between cigarettes and sugar sweetened beverages. The reason that taxing one is different from taxing the other follows.

Cite your sources. This is pretty old thinking.

It's just the opposite. We are for freedom. We don't want the govt telling people how to eat. Imagine if you have some obscure belief and are forced to give it up by the govt.

We are protecting the little guy by saying, "Mind your own business."[/quote]

For freedom? Like basing marriage rights on a book of fairy tales?

Letscensor wrote:

For freedom? Like basing marriage rights on a book of fairy tales?

I personally support gay marriage if that is what you are talking about, but thanks for assuming what I think.

***

Last night I went to Fuzzy's Taco Shop. I had some chips and queso and then their small beef salad which is pretty large. It's a bowl with a bunch of stuff thrown in it, cheese for sure, not sure exactly what, but I went for the Ranch avocado dressing. I just went to their website. The salad has

55% of my saturated fat for the day, 22% of my cholesterol, and 35% of my sodium (although aren't they showing a low sodium diet is now bad for you). I don't think that counts the dressing.

Actually the website shows the dressing has its own nutrition facts:

Add in 25% more saturated fat and 55% total fat, but I didn't eat all the dressing.

Time to start taxing salads I think.

I found the Chips and Queso info here:

I topped it off with a fairly large beer. I'm guessing 20 ounces. Maybe 16.

Which of these should we tax more? The chips and queso might cause blockage and a heart attack. However, if I have a heart attack wouldn't that lower health care costs as I'll die early instead of living out the final 6 months of my life hooked up to tubes while old while on Medicare? Plus, I'd never take my social security. Plus I have private insurance now so it won't be any cost to the government.

So should we tax cheese or encourage young people to eat it if your rationale is the amount of $ spent on health care even though I have private insurance.

The Berkeley tax passed with 75% of the vote.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/05/news/economy/berkeley-soda-tax/

I see something about retailers who pick up beverages outside of the city won't have to pay.

So maybe the cost of my 12 pack won't have to pay as I assume a lot of retailers will get their beverages outside of Berkeley rather than increase the price up to 50%.

wejo wrote:

So maybe the cost of my 12 pack won't have to pay as I assume a lot of retailers will get their beverages outside of Berkeley rather than increase the price up to 50%.

...as long as YOU are ok...that is all that matters...