Fitness Minutes: (2,976)
349 3/14/13 8:17 P
I'd like to point out something that nobody's said, and you all might totally disagree with me on, but I would like to say that I actually don't believe sugary drinks are bad for you. For example, my husband works outside in an incredibly strenuous and physically demanding job. When it's over a hundred degrees and he is sweating out his salt on his shirt, not only will he load up on water, but that evening, after rehydrating and getting some fruit in him, he will often grab a soda, saying that the sugar and caffeine totally make him feel so much better...when you've worked that long and hard and seriously need to rehydrate water, sugar, and salts, I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
NOW as far as every meal extra large soda consumption, of course that's unhealthy. But too much salt would also be just as unhealthy as too little. I haven't seen a ban or limitation on salt, though. Just something to think about.
Anyone notice how some states are legalizing marijuana while others are banning supersized sodas...hm. Again just something to think about.
Fitness Minutes: (0)
143 3/14/13 8:08 P
Unfortunatley, many resturants depend on unhealthy taste good foods to boost the economy and create more jobs, by keeping customers as well as new ones. So many ignore the nutrition labels, just consume the product. Some resturants went as far as discontuning some healthier options because not many being sold. Notice in the TV ads for fried chicken strips, Huge speciality burgers, etc the slender actors promoting the product rarely is shown taking a bite and Eating It!
Fitness Minutes: (18,504)
825 3/14/13 6:41 P
bunnykicks: love your idea of putting the nutrition on the label.
panera lists calories for soups and sandwiches on their menu. but not for the bake goods. (you can look up the calories online). i think they don't list them because there can be 500 calories in one of their muffins. not really a good selling point when the muffin can have more calories than a sandwich on the menu.
What if they were required to stick a nutrition label on the cups.
I think a lot of people are in denial about the nutrition facts of those coffees. I mean, you know it's going to be a bit "bad" given the whip cream and sweetener, but most people tend to be pretty shocked to learn that their iced frappucino grande is like 800 calories.....
Heck, I used to drink a simple Tim Hortons "extra large double double" (2 cream 2 sugar) - SEEMS LIKE A NORMAL CUP OF COFFEE TO ME. Only recently discovered it is THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY calories. Yes, they put 50ml (almost 2 ounces) of heavy coffee cream in there, and FOUR teaspoons of sugar.
I now drink it black. Or with milk. Even though the "double double" is the classic Canadian coffee order, I will never order it that way again.
Knowledge is power.
Fitness Minutes: (0)
143 3/14/13 3:57 P
Large size sodas is not the problem, a person can always return for seconds or thirds if they wish. What about those speciality coffees sold at Starbucks and other cafes that contain more than a days worth of fat and calories! Ban them also?! Some people make bad food decisions. Thats why there are sites like SparkPeople to stay informed, whether slimming, maintaining, already thin and getting fit! Education is the key, not banning foods or beverages. For some people junk has become a daily diet routine, while for others, still a sometime treat. Everything in moderation.
Fitness Minutes: (15,086)
59 3/14/13 1:16 P
I feel like the large drinks are not the problem. When I get fast food and I order a coke, the coke is really not the problem. It's the baconator(sp?) that I just ordered with it. It's the large fries that came with the combo. The large coke is just the icing on the fat cake. You can limit the large sizes but if people do not change their lifestyle overall they will be overweight and unhealthy.
I rarely drink soda so if this issue ever tried coming to my state it would not be a huge deal. I just think there are better solutions to the problem. Mostly education.
Fitness Minutes: (555)
281 3/14/13 9:13 A
Apparently we do need a law to help us behave. Considering the amount of people not behaving without a law... and I'm pretty sure our medical system (at least where I am from-Canada) can't continue to support the health issues these diets are causing, so yes, I wouldn't mind a law.
I was disappointed that it didn't go through. I don't live in NYC or even in the USA anymore, and I certainly don't touch sugar-sweetened sodas (barf) BUT I *am* a US taxpayer and I absolutely resent having to pay (via taxes) to treat the lifestyle diseases of your obscenely high obese population, thanks to stupid choices. I wish they would ban cigarettes and soda and everything else that corporations make billions (trillions?) off of and then it kills us AND we have to pay for that too.
I don't take offense to the legislation. I look at it more like a direction to the beverage companies rather than a limitation on consumers rights. Mcdonalds has slowly increased their serving sizes from the 1950's to now. Why? They are doing it to hook in returning customers. And I'm sure serving sizes didn't increase over night, Serving sizes have increased slowly over years where we may not even take notice at first. I absolutely don't mind the idea of that legislation.
Do you remember the hubub caused by the "My Plate" nutrition guideline and the backlash at Mrs. Obama for her anti-obesity initiatives?
People will always be angry about something, especially if that something is coming from a side they disagree with or don't like.
Frankly, I strongly support the idea of uniform serving sizes and limiting things like sugary drinks. Unfortunately, many see this as an effort to take away their rights, which is silly to me. You still can buy 64oz of soda, you just have to buy 4 16oz bottles rather than a 'big gulp' cup.
Fitness Minutes: (4,031)
180 3/13/13 6:09 P
I "get" it. Responsible businesses should offer choices that "make sense". No one really needs the half gallon of soda they offer at a movie theater. I also agree that manufacturers should watch what they are marketing as a single serving. Just in my generation I have seen soda go from 10 to 12 to 16 to 20 ounces being considered ONE.
But this is a capitalistic society. Companies are supplying what there is a demand for. True, there are ways of trying to create that demand...
So sure, tax the heck out of it and USE THE MONEY TO TRY TO FIX the issue. sure: don't sugary drinks be advertised in areas targeted at minors. Get people thinking. Stomp out the demand. If no one ever buys a 50 oz soda, then soon, no one will try to sell one.
A disconnect with "portion size" does tend to lead to weight gain, so it does make some sense to limit the size of an item that may be sold under the name "single serving."
We are so out of touch with portion size.... that is why most of us are here, and regaining perspective on what constitutes an appropriate portion of food (or drink) is one of the first and biggest struggles we face.
While "personal responsibility" does enter into the matter, the obesity epidemic is more than just the result of "collective failure to take personal responsibility." Making the "unhealthy" choice is simply too easy (cheap, accessible) and the "healthy" choice sometimes excrutiatingly difficult (expensive, unavailable). How exactly do we change the socio-economic environment in which we are all mired, to be more supportive of healthy choices and behaviours?
Fitness Minutes: (1,751)
214 3/13/13 5:53 P
For me it isn't so much that they were trying to dictate how business owners choose to do business, it is the principle of the matter, and it is a slippery slope. What is next?
For exmple, They're saying that sugary drinks correlate with obesity, so limit the amount sold to a person. Well, pants that are too long correlate with slipping and falling. Better limit the length of pants that can be sold to a person too (sorry tall people, you just have to deal). I realize it is a goofy extreme, but the thought process is the same. Or (less far fetched) some "scientific" study proclaims that apples cause diabetes (who knows why, but there are studies claiming just about everything). Better not let anyone buy more than one apple per week. Water. We all know it is good for us right? better make a law requiring everyone to buy at least 10 gallons of drinking water per week or they'll never think to drink enough themselves...Etc.
While we are a people of free will, we are all called to practice self-control, to avoid gluttony and sloth. America, in general, is a nation of abundance; our typical light lunch would be a feast in other counties. For me, I must take control of all my choices, not just food and exercise. I feel that government legislation is not an answer to self-control(self legislation).
As a holisitic approach to population health/public health, those ideas and more would be very warranted and welcome! Fitness is certainly part of the healthy equation! Or perhaps plow some funds into improving the nutritional value of school lunch programs, supporting local agriculture/farmers-markets, things that help make "healthy choices" more of a possibilty for your average person, particularly children/youth.
And if they do tax....then I want to see that evey cent is going to preventative reform... ---a safe, well-kept park in my neighborhood. --walking paths --side walks in neighborhoods and to schools, --what about affordable community fitness centers etc
Right, but as has been pointed out below, there have been many RESTRICTIONS placed on smoking. I've seen a LOT of changes in the last 20 years or so. "Back in the day" you could
smoke on a bus smoke on an airplane smoke in a restaurant smoke in the staff room of an elementary school smoke in the classroom (at my university, in the tutorial rooms, a-ok. also, library 5th floor, designated smoking floor of the campus library) smoke on the sidelines at Little Johnny's soccer practice smoke in the car with the windows closed, with your baby strapped in beside you smoke at your desk in the workplace blow your smoke in the face of a "holier than thou non smoker" because "it's not illegal, i have my rights, i can smoke if i want to."
Some of these things have been changed through social pressure, others through legislation. None of these is appropriate anymore. AND perhaps most importantly - the percentage of smokers has gone way DOWN, and public health overall has improved as a result.
I hope one day we will look back at the "back in the day" when people would routinely be served 64 ounce colas and wonder what the HECK we thought we were doing back then.
" Someone who wants a large soda THAT badly will just buy 2."
Right. SO this proposed legistlation (which failed to pass, anyways), was not an attack on one's personal right to consume soda, or to consume a lot of soda.
What it sought to direct was the RETAILER's standard serving size.
There was no proposed ban on the drinks. It was only on the size of the cup allowed to be sold as a "single serving."
Which - is not that bad an idea. We are hit in the face with Supersize Everything, this is a retailing/marketing concept that encourages overconsumption (and thus sales, and thus profits... and also waistlines). There was a lot wrong with that specific proposed law (thus why it failed to pass), but the concept of putting limits on how retailers can present their products is not inherently a terrible one.
For the record, people could still drink sugary drinks in NYC. They could still drink their way to obesity. Just as with smoking and alcohol, there were LIMITATIONS put on the consumption of those drinks.
Limitations are not bans.
I wish that those who get so upset about this would take a moment to actually learn what the law SAID.
Fitness Minutes: (73,197)
9,696 3/13/13 3:38 P
Frankly, they haven't made smoking illegal, so why in the world would they go to this stupid extreme on sugary drinks!!!!????
You're preachin' to the choir here ... I'm with ya!!
Fitness Minutes: (4,031)
180 3/13/13 3:36 P
OK. We know sugary drinks are not good for us. We know smoking is not good for us. We know drinking to excess is not good for us. Heck we know running around in the cold without a hat or jacket is not the greatest idea, but do we need a LAW to FORCE us to behave?
I feel as if legislating EVERYTHING is giving people the idea it's ok not to take personal responsibility. Then we get: "if it's that bad, why isn't there a law against it?"
Because there shouldn't NEED to be a law. People should be able to make good decisions for themselves.
So educate. Offer alternatives. Go ahead and TAX if that makes you feel better. But a law like this is a waste of time and money. Someone who wants a large soda THAT badly will just buy 2.
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.