Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
MANDIETERRIER1 Posts: 17,529
7/4/14 6:30 P

They also make hard cider, hard lemonade and apple cider beer.

I don't even want to imagine a world where someone is being read their Miranda rights for over consumption of sugar. Taxing an already taxed police force. And I know some police officers, they really do like their donuts and coffee.

Edited by: MANDIETERRIER1 at: 7/4/2014 (18:31)
ALGEBRAGIRL Posts: 1,925
7/4/14 5:52 P

They put fruit in beers already. The world is outta control!

Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 7/4/2014 (17:55)
LOVEXAVIE SparkPoints: (42,859)
Fitness Minutes: (48,271)
Posts: 2,449
7/4/14 4:24 P

1. They make marshmallow flavored vodka?!

2. Makes me think of "the Twinkie defense," though this was apparently a rounded-up theory as opposed to an actual solid defense.

ALGEBRAGIRL Posts: 1,925
7/4/14 3:41 P

Gram for gram, fat has more calories than sugar.
Gram for gram, when you add fat to food, you add more than twice as many calories as sugar.

I think taste is a factor: People who are firefighters may like the taste of sugary drinks better than plain water. They definitely prefer it to drinking down oil (fat).

The deciding factor is physical activity. Firefighters work out and stay in shape to be able to carry heavy hoses, heavy people, climb ladders - they have to have good muscular strength (in particular, upper body strength). Whatever calories give them the energy! My doctor recommended the Engine 2 Diet to me (he followed it himself) but I found it way too hard. Those firefighters are not only vegan but low-fat and low-sugar.

Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 7/4/2014 (15:41)
7/4/14 2:06 P

"People who are very physically active often need the calorie density they get from sugar. I've personally helped serve Kool-aid and Gatorade to firefighters and hiking trail maintenance crews because they will lose too much weight if they're not constantly replenishing calories, and getting that many calories from actual food would provide too much fiber, protein, etc."

I would think they are being served sugary drinks not so much for the calories but more so for the hydration. Firefighters and hiking trail maintenance people need fluids so they don't get dehydrated. Granted because they have a high activity level they can get away with consuming a lot of sugar and not gain weight. Most people would not be able to do this.

I myself do trail maintenance and participate in endurance sports (mountain biking for 4 hours at a time). I need water and minerals and calories for this, but not so much sugar. Fat is 9 calories per gram and sugar is only 4 calories per gram so gram for gram fat is a much better source of energy than sugar. My performance on my bike improved substantially when I increased my fat intake and lowered my carbohydrates.

I don't think anyone needs "a lot" of sugar to reach their best health.

FERRNIE SparkPoints: (14,592)
Fitness Minutes: (5,721)
Posts: 459
7/4/14 11:53 A

Or a news flash: Grandma and Grandpa Whatsits, were pulled over for a routine traffic stop. When asked to open the trunk 50 fruit cakes were found along with 23 tins of frosted sugar cookies, 2 pounds of chocolate covered raisins, 6 pounds of homemade fudge, and the suspects were drinking from a 1 gallon thermos the Sweet Tea! They were trying to cross the state lines to visit their grandchildren.

ALGEBRAGIRL Posts: 1,925
7/4/14 10:19 A

Or cops patting someone down to see if they are carrying cake...

MANDIETERRIER1 Posts: 17,529
7/3/14 11:44 A

I have never heard of anyone being arrested for driving under the influence of sugar.

ANARIE Posts: 13,192
7/2/14 6:51 P

Mandie, loving the image of teenagers giving the old bum a 10-spot to buy them $5 worth of Lucky Charms and letting him keep the Froot Loops.

Seriously, though...

We tolerate regulation of alcohol for two reasons: 1) Conservatives accept it because of puritanical religious tradition. If they couldn't claim it was a sin, they would be on the opposite side of the question, fighting to get all limitations removed. 2) Liberals accept it because they think it's for the good of society. If they couldn't claim that it protects everyone by reducing drunk driving and alcoholism, they'd be on the opposite side of the question, fighting it as a religious intrusion into individual rights and responsibility.

No religion has a prohibition against sugar (in fact, the most conservative religious groups are statistically the most likely to provide sugary foods and drinks at their social functions), and it's pretty hard to argue that your sugar consumption directly affects my health or safety. Neither side has an excuse.

And sugar actually isn't universally harmful. People who are very physically active often need the calorie density they get from sugar. I've personally helped serve Kool-aid and Gatorade to firefighters and hiking trail maintenance crews because they will lose too much weight if they're not constantly replenishing calories, and getting that many calories from actual food would provide too much fiber, protein, etc. Sugar IS a food. It's a lot like saturated fat-- most of us get way more than we need, and some of us could/should cut it down to almost zero, but some people can't reach their best health without eating a lot of it.

MANDIETERRIER1 Posts: 17,529
7/2/14 2:02 P

I would like to see clear labeling. With added sugar and natural sugar.

And then you would have overworked cashiers having to check ID's to make sure no one underage is trying to buy deserts. I go to a store that also sells alcohol and an underage cashier cannot process your purchase if you are buying alcohol or cigarettes. So that would reduce jobs for teenagers that need summer or part time employment.

And then you have the kids standing outside the store looking for an adult who will buy them some Lucky Charms.

Edited by: MANDIETERRIER1 at: 7/2/2014 (14:07)
GIPPER1961 Posts: 766
7/2/14 1:59 P

I have waded into this subject of regulation before and usually don't get much support, but regulation of substances nearly always creates unintended consequences.

For example, in the present circumstance, making it illegal to purchase a product does not mean the product will not be purchased. Prohibition proves this. During the period of prohibition of alcohol nearly as much alcohol was consumed, but instead of legitimate purveyors of drink they bought it from illegal sources such as the mafia controlled speakeasies.

a part of the damage illegal drugs do is brought on by the illegal nature of them. On top of the damage they actually do to the body the user has to go to extraordinary means to purchase it sometimes resorting to theft, robbery, and even more extreme measures.

Age prohibiting sugar would in my opinion be disregarded as extreme and never enforced and even where enforced adults would gladly buy the cute little kid a sucker.

On the supply side the manufacturers would always be one step ahead. Regulate sugar they will use HFCS. Add that to the list they will create other grain based sugars, or switch to honey or agave nectar. There is no limitation on sweeteners and since the regulators by nature are slow it will always be a catch me if you can situation.

Edited by: GIPPER1961 at: 7/2/2014 (14:00)
KASTRA Posts: 369
7/2/14 1:49 P

Hah, Bunnykicks! I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought if this went through, the sudden appearance of Underground Black Market Bakery rings would be unstoppable. Adorable grandma by day, cut-throat cupcake distributor by night!

LEC, it's a fun theory but...yeah. I don't think it would fly. Like most of the others, though, I'd love to see more defined labeling!

Edited because I apparently forgot how to spell "throat."

Edited by: KASTRA at: 7/2/2014 (14:34)
VEG_GIRL04 Posts: 2,644
7/2/14 1:13 P

No thanks on more government involved in my life. Especially in that way.

Labeling is the way to go. Just like supplements and diet pills and all that crap should have clear labeling.

But don't ever tell me what I can feed me, my kids, provide my guests. My body. My choice.

And drinking age...that's a whole other conversation for another day.

Edited by: VEG_GIRL04 at: 7/2/2014 (13:14)
BUNNYKICKS Posts: 2,433
7/2/14 10:51 A

Sudden image of SWAT teams dropping from helicopters to raze and burn fields of sugar beets...

LEC358 SparkPoints: (11,135)
Fitness Minutes: (6,555)
Posts: 2,744
7/2/14 9:42 A

How is alcohol consumption enforced after leaving the store? What is keeping a mom of 3 from buying a bottle of marshmallow flavored vodka to pour over her kids' Cheerios? What's keeping the guy buying a carton of cigarettes at the 7-11 from teaching his 6-year old how to smoke them?

"What if sugar as a food additive was just now invented and up for FDA approval?" Hmm, that's an interesting question. Honestly, based on the studies I've read about the addicting nature of sugar and the physiological effects on the long and short term, I'm not entirely sure it would pass muster.

PSCHIAVONE2 SparkPoints: (20,650)
Fitness Minutes: (13,280)
Posts: 785
7/2/14 9:11 A

What if sugar was just invented as a food additive yesterday. What would the FDA analysis look like and would it be approved for food?

FIELDWORKING SparkPoints: (29,946)
Fitness Minutes: (64,745)
Posts: 748
7/2/14 8:51 A

Your idea is good, but the problem with the idea is in what can already be bought (i.e., sugary cereals, pop tarts, candy, etc.). If an age restriction is placed on the buying things that are sugary, how would it be enforced. Sure, you could ask for id, but how is anyone going to know that the box of Fruit Loops that a mom of three bought will be eaten by her and not her kids? How will it be enforced once the products have left the store? Or is your idea solely on the thought that kids go into a gas station to buy candy and that the cashier refuses to sell the candy to a minor?

As others have stated, better labels would be helpful for consumers (natural sugars and added sugars). Obviously, it would be nice if parents would teach kids about limiting their sugar consumption, but it is easier said than done. Honestly, sugar is just as hard to give up as drugs and messes with your health too.

You have a good idea, but logistically, would be difficult to enforce.

7/2/14 8:26 A

The drinking age is 19 here. My kids will be allowed to drink alcohol at home before they turn 19. I only drink a few times a year but I would like would like my kids to learn to drink responsibly. Something that was not taught to me.

Alcohol can be fatal so learning ones limit is important.

While I think too much sugar can have bad health consequences in the long term, I think alcohol can have bad consequences in the short term especially for girls.

Labelling is the way to go, people don't want to be told what they can and can't eat.

Edited by: JUSTEATREALFOOD at: 7/2/2014 (08:42)
LEC358 SparkPoints: (11,135)
Fitness Minutes: (6,555)
Posts: 2,744
7/2/14 8:04 A

Geez all I was trying to do was think outside of the box for a little bit, and maybe have some fun playing "what if" with you all. I guess that went over like a lead balloon.

Edited by: LEC358 at: 7/2/2014 (08:06)
ALGEBRAGIRL Posts: 1,925
7/1/14 10:07 P

Wasn't an attempt to ban large soft drinks in New York just deemed unconstitutional by the High Court?

Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 7/1/2014 (22:22)
ICEDEMETER Posts: 1,332
7/1/14 9:28 P

My thought is that it would barely slow down the production of all of the "sugary" foods - the manufacturers would just change over to artificial sweeteners and sugar alcohols so that that taste would still meet the "bliss point" that they've already determined sells the products. Limiting real sugar (which at least comes from natural sources, although it is processed to get what we're used to) wouldn't change the taste buds, nor the priorities, of anyone.

Want to take a guess at what the "discussions" would be then?!

The only thing that I would like to see is the requirement for more accurate labeling, showing clearly how much of the "sugars" are added and how much are part of the natural ingredients. Labeling at least leaves the decisions in the hands of the consumers, or their parents.

Edited by: ICEDEMETER at: 7/1/2014 (21:29)
MICHELLEXXXX SparkPoints: (12,229)
Fitness Minutes: (5,920)
Posts: 3,780
7/1/14 8:17 P

I think we need to teach our kids math, science, art, woodshop, mechanics, patience, kindness, faith, etc. There will be plenty of time to learn to drink when they are 21 and by then they'll need a break.

EELPIE Posts: 2,700
7/1/14 7:17 P

Wow. Absolutely not.

MANDIETERRIER1 Posts: 17,529
7/1/14 7:00 P

I think you would have kids that would indulge in under age sugar eating and binging.

Besides that won't ever happen. That would require a lot more government regulation and no one wants big brother in their cupboard. I know I don't.

LEC358 SparkPoints: (11,135)
Fitness Minutes: (6,555)
Posts: 2,744
7/1/14 6:24 P

Inspired by another discussion on SP, I decided to propose a thought experiment: what would happen if we regulated added sugar in foods as we do alcohol? Age regulations, labeling, etc.

My thoughts: You'd immediately see less sugary foods since it would be less available. And children would be less exposed to it as a result. But then, would we see the types of risky "sugar binging" that we see with alcohol once kids are away from their parents' supervision? There's actually a movement (which I believe in, having seen the risks of experimental binge drinking first hand) to roll the drinking age back to 18 (or even 16) so that parents could guide their children's exposure to sugar and (hopefully) to teach them how to enjoy alcohol responsibly.

What are your thoughts?

What do you thin

Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Diet and Nutrition Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
2 weeks down 2 weeks up 12/16/2016 9:20:18 PM
Dukan diet attack phase 10/9/2016 8:20:45 PM
junk food 10/19/2016 1:29:59 PM
How can humans eat grass? 7/11/2016 2:49:39 PM
How did goals get established? 3/21/2017 6:33:57 AM