Languish.org

I came across this article in NY Times magazine.  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1  It argues that sugar is actively harmful, and not just high fructose corn syrup, and is the main cause of the obesity epidemic.

I thought it was very interesting and thought-provoking.  Ever since I stopped consuming practically all refined sugars as an experiment, and quickly lost 20 pounds as a result, I've been interested in this topic.  I've never been on board the idea that eating too much and not exercising is all there is to the obesity epidemic.  I wonder if in the future, we would regard the society's view on sugar right now the same way we view society's attitude toward smoking 50 years ago.

Not unlikely. Lots of things about nutrition we thought were carved in stone are pretty much nonsense. Also, exercise has little to do with weight loss. Who knew? Now, people are saying if you want to lose weight, don't exercise too much because it makes you hungry. And don't eat too little because it puts your body into energy-saving mode and you won't burn fat. And if you are trying to work out to get stronger, it's better to only do it for a short time. All those cardio and targeted muscle machines are worthless. Margarine is worse for you than butter. Nutrition and fitness is a witch doctor's business.

What a silly thing to worry about.

*ahem* Lactase.

Quote from: Neil on April 13, 2011, 10:08:47 PM
What a silly thing to worry about.

You mean obesity and diabetes?

Sugar is not a poison. Whoever wrote that article for the New York Times should be fired.

 :huh:

Isn't "sugar", ie. C6H12O6, the very thing your digestive system converts your food to, in other words, the thing in which it carries energy to your cells?

Like everything else, it's part of a balanced diet to be used in moderation, as they say on the ads. It does have an effect on your insulin mechanism, yes, but that's not going to make you fat or diabetic if you don't do massive quantities on a regular basis.

That said, I'd add that I'm terrified at the amount of sweet stuff in the American diet. Every time I've been there, EVERYTHING tasted sweet to me - even the meat, vegetables, sauces and salads. Some restaurant meals made me feel quite ill, a sweet steak for example. What's up with that?

For someone not suffering from obesity or diabetes, you'd probably improve your diet more by ditching diet sugar substitutes rather than the real stuff.

I agree, and it's frustrating to me too.  One of the ways you can tell a good Italian restaurant from a shitty one is that the good ones don't have sweet tomato sauce. :x

Sadly, so few people know what good Italian food is like here that they actually prefer sugar sauce on their Italian food. :(

Friend of mine dumps splenda in his red sauce. Yeakth.

It is annoying to go looking for unsweetened canned vegetables or fruits.  Its nearly impossible. 

That's why I've started growing my own fruits, my good man. :)

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 10:03:57 PM
Not unlikely. Lots of things about nutrition we thought were carved in stone are pretty much nonsense. Also, exercise has little to do with weight loss. Who knew? Now, people are saying if you want to lose weight, don't exercise too much because it makes you hungry. And don't eat too little because it puts your body into energy-saving mode and you won't burn fat. And if you are trying to work out to get stronger, it's better to only do it for a short time. All those cardio and targeted muscle machines are worthless. Margarine is worse for you than butter. Nutrition and fitness is a witch doctor's business.

I completely disagree. Start running five miles a day and you are going to lose some weight unless you start doing something crazy. Watching a five minute ab video may be less effective.

Quote from: Tamas on April 14, 2011, 01:48:05 AM
:huh:

Isn't "sugar", ie. C6H12O6, the very thing your digestive system converts your food to, in other words, the thing in which it carries energy to your cells?

That's a "simple" sugar- a disaccharide.  Fructose and sucrose are polysaccharides, which we already knew were harder for the body to metabolize.  The flaw in the "sugar is poison" argument is that it relies mostly on correlation in historical analysis- that attributes a certain static quality that we know isn't the case in human biology- it's why I mentioned lactase, since our bodies have adapted to produce it for digestion of dairy products.

Quote from: DGuller on April 13, 2011, 10:37:22 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 13, 2011, 10:08:47 PM
What a silly thing to worry about.

You mean obesity and diabetes?

Yes, although worrying about sugar is silly as well.

Quote from: Brazen on April 14, 2011, 05:17:41 AM
That said, I'd add that I'm terrified at the amount of sweet stuff in the American diet. Every time I've been there, EVERYTHING tasted sweet to me - even the meat, vegetables, sauces and salads. Some restaurant meals made me feel quite ill, a sweet steak for example. What's up with that?

Really? I found that found in Korea (when it's not bitter or hot) is often much sweeter than American food.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 14, 2011, 06:02:11 AM
I completely disagree. Start running five miles a day and you are going to lose some weight unless you start doing something crazy. Watching a five minute ab video may be less effective.

Running five miles would take me 2-3 hours.  Ditching the sugar is free.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 14, 2011, 06:27:15 AM

Quote from: Tamas on April 14, 2011, 01:48:05 AM
:huh:

Isn't "sugar", ie. C6H12O6, the very thing your digestive system converts your food to, in other words, the thing in which it carries energy to your cells?

That's a "simple" sugar- a disaccharide.  Fructose and sucrose are polysaccharides, which we already knew were harder for the body to metabolize.  The flaw in the "sugar is poison" argument is that it relies mostly on correlation in historical analysis- that attributes a certain static quality that we know isn't the case in human biology- it's why I mentioned lactase, since our bodies have adapted to produce it for digestion of dairy products.

No, fructose and sucrose are not polysaccharides. Fructose is a monosaccharide. Sucrose is a disaccharide of fructose and glucose. An example of a polysaccharide would be starch or glycogen.

The article is by Gary Taubes - he's a self styled dieting guru, widely considered a peddler of pseudo-science on the topic of dieting. His previous work was all about why carbohydrates alone make you fat (as opposed to eating too much and not exercising enough).

I'd take any extreme pronouncements on totally avoiding sugar with - as they say - a grain of salt.  ;)

You can say this theory is a refinement of the previous one.  Now it turns out that not all carbohydrates are bad, but only a subset of them.  People like Atkins may have been quacks, but they may also have stumbled upon a piece of the puzzle, which is why their diets were successful in a limited way.

Like the theory that 'the sky is falling!' is a refinement of the theory that 'the sky is blue!'  :lol:

Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2011, 09:06:01 AM
Like the theory that 'the sky is falling!' is a refinement of the theory that 'the sky is blue!'  :lol:

I don't see it, Marty.  It sounds more like "saturated and tran fats are bad" from "all fats are bad".  You start with a theory that explains some observations, and prune and refine it until it fits more of the observations.  That's how science works, scientists don't get things perfectly right the first time, especially sciences where cause and effect is very difficult to test.

If sugars are indeed as bad as claimed, then a diet that restricts all carbohydrates will still be likely a successful one.  It is not at all unreasonable to draw the connection in the absence of other evidence.  The only unreasonable thing is to stick to the old model when a new model explains the obervations better.  That's why Malthus's bit by itself doesn't strike me as damning at all.

This article is crap. Who wrote that shit?

Quote from: DGuller on April 13, 2011, 09:46:10 PM
I've never been on board the idea that eating too much and not exercising is all there is to the obesity epidemic.

Well it is not like Americans were super disciplined with their diets in the 1960s and 1970s yet people were dramatically thinner.  Nor do I think everybody just exercised all the time 20, 30, and 40 years ago.  It is puzzling that is for sure.  But then I was not there.  Maybe eating healthy food and exercising was vastly more common in 1975.

Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2011, 08:45:58 AM
I'd take any extreme pronouncements on totally avoiding sugar with - as they say - a grain of salt.  ;)

Make sure it's low-sodium.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2011, 06:31:26 AM
Really? I found that found in Korea (when it's not bitter or hot) is often much sweeter than American food.

Oriental food makes a big thing about balancing out the four flavours - sweet, salty, spicy and 'umami', so you'll encounter all of this in most dishes.

The difference between US and UK versions of the same European foods is very marked. Maybe it's one of the reasons Americans find our food bland and we find American food stodgy?

Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 09:22:40 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 13, 2011, 09:46:10 PM
I've never been on board the idea that eating too much and not exercising is all there is to the obesity epidemic.

Well it is not like Americans were super disciplined with their diets in the 1960s and 1970s yet people were dramatically thinner.  Nor do I think everybody just exercised all the time 20, 30, and 40 years ago.  It is puzzling that is for sure.  But then I was not there.  Maybe eating healthy food and exercising was vastly more common in 1975.

Agreed.  It's not like we were an agrarian society that instantly urbanized and sub-urbanized 30 years ago. 

Personally, the difference is most striking to me when I'm watching some old NASCAR footage on pit road.  If you watch a clip from 1975, most pit crews look like sticks.  If you watch NASCAR now, pretty much every crew member looks like a whale on very fat legs, and it's not muscle.  You can't say that NASCAR pit crew doesn't excercise enough.

Quote from: Brazen on April 14, 2011, 09:25:26 AM

Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2011, 08:45:58 AM
I'd take any extreme pronouncements on totally avoiding sugar with - as they say - a grain of salt.  ;)

Make sure it's low-sodium.

Just use sea salt!

Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 09:22:40 AM
Well it is not like Americans were super disciplined with their diets in the 1960s and 1970s yet people were dramatically thinner.  Nor do I think everybody just exercised all the time 20, 30, and 40 years ago.  It is puzzling that is for sure.  But then I was not there.  Maybe eating healthy food and exercising was vastly more common in 1975.

Having lived through the 70s, I can tell you the difference is snacking and eating out. Looking back, I just don't remember eating between meals or even wanting to. And any day out, whether just going to work or a leisure trip, you'd bring a sandwich. Eating out was a very special occasion thing. For example, we'd go for a burger (Wimpy's, before McDonalds hit our shores) as a birthday treat!

Boston is with the flow of non-sugar!   <_<     Banning it on public areas, including the hospital where I work. I won't drink the aspertame stuff much anymore so I guess sweet drinks are out for me.  Heh, I usually drink water or coffee anyway, and the Dunkin Donuts shops in the hospital still have sugar available. Sheesh, let adults make their own decisions. I can see in schools limiting fatty and sugary stuff for kids.

Quote

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/04/08/city_properties_added_to_boston_ban_on_sugary_drinks_1302233569/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed4

Menino expands sugary drink ban
Some beverages won't be allowed on city properties

By Meghan E. Irons
Globe Staff / April 8, 2011

Mayor Thomas M. Menino said yesterday that he is expanding his ban on sugar-sweetened drinks in schools to include all city properties and functions, a sweeping restriction that means that calorie-laden soft drinks, juices with added sugar, and sports drinks like Gatorade will no longer be offered in vending machines, concession stands, and city-run meetings, programs and events.

    * Tweet 4 people Tweeted this
    * Submit to Diggdiggsdigg
    * Yahoo! Buzz ShareThis

"It's going to be bad for morale around here,'' said Jim Hardy, who runs Station 10 Cafe at police headquarters, where officers get daily doses of soda, fruit juices, and sugary iced tea, along with their sandwiches.

The mayor, who has battled weight issues, said that too many Bostonians are overweight or obese and that he wants to make healthy choices easy for them.

"I haven't had a glass of soda in two years,'' Menino said during a press conference at City Hall announcing the measure.

The move follows other anti-obesity initiatives across the country, including the fight against childhood obesity by Michelle Obama at the White House, as communities grapple with a problem deemed a national epidemic.

Yesterday, Carney Hospital in Dorchester followed Menino's lead, saying it will ban sweetened beverages on hospital grounds. Hospital president Bill Walczak called on other health institutions to follow Carney's plan.

"We all know that good health is built around a couple of things,'' such as exercising and eating healthy, Walczak said. "So why do we spend so much effort in providing unhealthy food in our cafeterias, vending machines, and various other institutions? It just doesn't make sense.''

Barbara Ferrer, executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission, said the new city policy will curb health care costs and boost worker productivity. She said 1-in-3 Boston public high school students and 1-in-2 middle and elementary school students are overweight or obese.

While soda and sweetened beverages are major contributors, Ferrer also faults a super-sized culture and the abundance of inexpensive processed food in supermarkets.

In efforts to promote healthier eating, Boston has pushed for farmers markets selling fresh fruits and vegetables, backyard gardens, and neighborhood walking groups.

In 2004, the city fought off huge resistance and banned junk food and soft drinks from vending machines at Boston public schools. This summer, the city is planning to launch a bike share program that would make 600 bicycles available for borrowing.

"We've made tremendous strides in changing the food and beverage environment in the city, and creating more opportunities for residents to be more active,'' said Ferrer.

The mayor's executive order sets so-called science-based, color-coded standards for what is considered a healthy beverage and what can be sold or served on city property.

City buildings and departments have six months before they are required to phase out the sale of beverages coded red: those loaded with sugar, such as nondiet sodas, presweetened iced teas, refrigerated coffee drinks, energy and sports drinks, and juices with added sugar. The promotion of red beverages on banners, panels, and vending machines will be banned.

The new policy allows for the sale of yellow beverages such as diet sodas, diet iced teas, 100 percent juices, low-calorie sports drinks, low-sugar sweetened beverages, sweetened soymilk, and flavored sweetened milk.

Green beverages, such as bottled water, flavored and unflavored seltzer water, low-fat milk, and unsweetened soymilk will also be allowed.

So far, the ban is getting a cool reaction from some independent contractors who serve city employees. John Moreira, who manages the Coffee Stop Cafe on the first floor of City Hall, spent a part of the afternoon turning around bottles to scan the nutrition labels, trying to guess which drinks would no longer be allowed. He said that he will conform to the new policy, but that he has reservations.

At police headquarters, Hardy said the new plan could curb 20 percent of his business if officers and civilian employees begin bringing in their own sodas and eventually sandwiches, instead of buying them from him.

Yesterday, he said, complaints were coming in from those who love their sodas and do not like being told what to do or to drink.

"The city banned saturated fat two years ago, and they can do without,'' Hardy said of the officers. "But I don't think they can do without their'' Coca-Colas.

Meghan Irons can be reached at [email protected].

I don't have a problem with it.  Sugar ban is a lot like smoking ban.  Just like you don't want to inhale other people's smoke, you also don't want to look at other people's obesity.

Quote from: Brazen on April 14, 2011, 09:36:30 AM

Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 09:22:40 AM
Well it is not like Americans were super disciplined with their diets in the 1960s and 1970s yet people were dramatically thinner.  Nor do I think everybody just exercised all the time 20, 30, and 40 years ago.  It is puzzling that is for sure.  But then I was not there.  Maybe eating healthy food and exercising was vastly more common in 1975.

Having lived through the 70s, I can tell you the difference is snacking and eating out. Looking back, I just don't remember eating between meals or even wanting to. And any day out, whether just going to work or a leisure trip, you'd bring a sandwich. Eating out was a very special occasion thing. For example, we'd go for a burger (Wimpy's, before McDonalds hit our shores) as a birthday treat!

In my opinion this is the biggest difference, with large disposable incomes, people in my age range have a tendency to eat out far more than their parents. I think another problem is the availability of subsidised catering at work, I know people who have a substantial cooked lunch and then go home and have normal evening meal as well. 

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 09:16:41 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2011, 09:06:01 AM
Like the theory that 'the sky is falling!' is a refinement of the theory that 'the sky is blue!'  :lol:

I don't see it, Marty.  It sounds more like "saturated and tran fats are bad" from "all fats are bad".  You start with a theory that explains some observations, and prune and refine it until it fits more of the observations.  That's how science works, scientists don't get things perfectly right the first time, especially sciences where cause and effect is very difficult to test.

If sugars are indeed as bad as claimed, then a diet that restricts all carbohydrates will still be likely a successful one.  It is not at all unreasonable to draw the connection in the absence of other evidence.  The only unreasonable thing is to stick to the old model when a new model explains the obervations better.  That's why Malthus's bit by itself doesn't strike me as damning at all.

Marti, why are you addressing science when we are talking about a Times magazine opinion piece which eschews science in its title ("Is sugar toxic?")?  You may think that, because you personally lost some weight after you took an action, "science" somehow proves the action, by itself, was the cause of the weight loss, and so buy into the kinds of voodoo science that calls sugars "evil" (such a scientific term!  :lmfao: ) burt don't expect anyone with an understanding of science to buy into this.  Science doesn't work via youtube videos (which is the reference Taube starts with) and doesn't define its core concepts so as to promote certain answers (as when Taube defines "sugar" solely as "both sucrose — beet and cane sugar, whether white or brown — and high-fructose corn syrup"). 

If you want science, don't rely on self-proclaimed experts writing opinion pieces in popular magazines.

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 09:33:18 AM

Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 09:22:40 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 13, 2011, 09:46:10 PM
I've never been on board the idea that eating too much and not exercising is all there is to the obesity epidemic.

Well it is not like Americans were super disciplined with their diets in the 1960s and 1970s yet people were dramatically thinner.  Nor do I think everybody just exercised all the time 20, 30, and 40 years ago.  It is puzzling that is for sure.  But then I was not there.  Maybe eating healthy food and exercising was vastly more common in 1975.

Agreed.  It's not like we were an agrarian society that instantly urbanized and sub-urbanized 30 years ago. 

Personally, the difference is most striking to me when I'm watching some old NASCAR footage on pit road.  If you watch a clip from 1975, most pit crews look like sticks.  If you watch NASCAR now, pretty much every crew member looks like a whale on very fat legs, and it's not muscle.  You can't say that NASCAR pit crew doesn't excercise enough.

You want to know why (and why Canadians tend overall to be thinner)? It is no mystery to me, and it can be summed up in two words: portion sizes.

When I take my family to the US and dine at a chain restaurant, I'm often surprised by the sheer amount of food that is considered normal. In one place, an appetizer, main and desert was enough to feed my whole family (two adults and a child), with some left over.

If people eat out like that ordinarily, it is no wonder they are more likely to be fat.

(Portion sizes are increasing in Canada too, only seemingly not as quickly).

Portion sizes have grown over the years.

QuoteIt is no secret that portion sizes, as well as waistlines, in this country are expanding. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 20051 urge Americans to pay special attention to portion sizes, which have increased significantly over the past 2 decades. Restaurant meals of all kinds have gotten larger with an emphasis on getting more food for the money. However, the rise of portion sizes is not limited to restaurants alone. Bags of snack foods or soft drinks in vending machines and the grocery store are offered in larger and larger sizes that contain multiple servings while a 1-ounce bag of snack food or an 8-ounce soft drink, which are the recommended single serving sizes, are very difficult to find. Americans are surrounded by larger portion sizes at relatively low prices, appealing to the consumer's economic sensibilities. However, the cost to America's health may be higher than most people realize.

From: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3Ffz23FKOUMJ:www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/pdf/portion_size_research.pdf+portion+sizes+increased&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiUfTFnHRYtzC-wAJ-29gl16jAEDYW8y7TDMX0FT9O4o4p7cuKuvcYwZ6NU4_j37ZbOw0sec7CSjLdpAdOpqFC2dGJ7D-OvfjXi1TYXF3C7jdo30jcX94IeUnSu5QIsvFR0b56X&sig=AHIEtbQca07j3C8Re_soh40MOd8MOd9TFA

Don't need some crackpot theory to explain the obvious: eat more all the time, you are more likely to get fat.

Quote from: Brazen on April 14, 2011, 09:28:18 AM
The difference between US and UK versions of the same European foods is very marked. Maybe it's one of the reasons Americans find our food bland and we find American food stodgy?

I was just in France and the food there was generally as sweet as in the US, if not more so.  The marked exception was the baguette, which was buttery-tasting but not sweet.  French croissants were far sweeter than i am used to, to the point that I couldn't stand to eat them after about the second day.

Of course, Malthus, your own theory assumes that causation goes one way, when in fact it's not obvious which one causes the other, if at all.  Are portion sizes leading to people being obese, or do fat people want to eat more food and thus expect more when they eat out?

Another point is that "eat more" theory only makes obvious sense if humans weren't equipped with a mechanism to control their food intake.

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 09:33:18 AM
If you watch NASCAR now, pretty much every crew member looks like a whale on very fat legs, and it's not muscle.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.nj.com%2Frutgers_football%2F2009%2F06%2Flarge_milan.jpg&hash=b4e618783d93e2875ec6aebb769cf904375b80b3)  :huh:

Maybe some glasses would help.  That also opens the possibility that your eyesight is misleading you as to how your scale reads, and that maybe you didn't lose all that weight when you quit taking in foods with sugars added.

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 10:13:09 AM
Of course, Malthus, your own theory assumes that causation goes one way, when in fact it's not obvious which one causes the other, if at all.  Are portion sizes leading to people being obese, or do fat people want to eat more food and thus expect more when they eat out?

Another point is that "eat more" theory only makes obvious sense if humans weren't equipped with a mechanism to control their food intake.

Well, to start, much as I'd like to take credit for the starling notion that eating more is more likely to make one fat, it isn't *my* theory. Read the link. It is, evidently, the conclusion come to by the folks at the US Department of Health and Human Services, based on a bunch of research that is described in the link. There are chapter headings entitled "Short-term studies show that people eat more when they are confronted with larger portion sizes".

Now I know that common sense, combined with clinical research by scientists, should not weigh against the inspired writings of a man like Gary Taubes, who has in the past demonstrated in his infinite wisdom total indifference to either, but still ...  :D

Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2011, 10:21:33 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 09:33:18 AM
If you watch NASCAR now, pretty much every crew member looks like a whale on very fat legs, and it's not muscle.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.nj.com%2Frutgers_football%2F2009%2F06%2Flarge_milan.jpg&hash=b4e618783d93e2875ec6aebb769cf904375b80b3)  :huh:

Maybe some glasses would help.  That also opens the possibility that your eyesight is misleading you as to how your scale reads, and that maybe you didn't lose all that weight when you quit taking in foods with sugars added.

We can all play that game.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.losangeles.uscgnews.com%2Fclients%2Fc834%2F37531.jpg&hash=0caadd86d54ef4dcb9d74899713e3d2bcf7754d6)

The difference is that my picture is more like what you would typically see, at least on TV.

hard to tell if they're fat or just wearing baggy clothes. Either way not whales on fat legs. Advantage grumbler :P

All I ever drink anymore is coffee, tea, water, or unsweetened iced tea.

Ok, sometimes beer, wine, and liquor too. :blush:

The people in the second picture look like they are wearing bulky fire resistant clothing.  I can't really tell how thin they are.

Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2011, 10:25:25 AM
Well, to start, much as I'd like to take credit for the starling notion that eating more is more likely to make one fat, it isn't *my* theory. Read the link. It is, evidently, the conclusion come to by the folks at the US Department of Health and Human Services, based on a bunch of research that is described in the link. There are chapter headings entitled "Short-term studies show that people eat more when they are confronted with larger portion sizes".

Now I know that common sense, combined with clinical research by scientists, should not weigh against the inspired writings of a man like Gary Taubes, who has in the past demonstrated in his infinite wisdom total indifference to either, but still ...  :D

Should it have weight?  Of course.  Should it trump any other theory?  That would imply that we know everything there is to know about nutritional science, and that federal government is a good judge of what it is.  I'm doubtful about both, personally.

I do think that we're still in the dark age when it comes to nutritional sicence, and thus no one has the absolute authority to dismiss any theory outright, unless it is self-contradictory.  People are still bulging at alarming rates, so whatever we do know is either incomplete, or impractical to implement.

Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2011, 10:07:34 AM

Quote from: Brazen on April 14, 2011, 09:28:18 AM
The difference between US and UK versions of the same European foods is very marked. Maybe it's one of the reasons Americans find our food bland and we find American food stodgy?

I was just in France and the food there was generally as sweet as in the US, if not more so.  The marked exception was the baguette, which was buttery-tasting but not sweet.  French croissants were far sweeter than i am used to, to the point that I couldn't stand to eat them after about the second day.

There's the difference between croissants au beurre (butter croissants) and croissants ordinaires. The butter ones are heavier on the stomach and the fat. Ask for an ordinaire next time.

Portions are smaller in France in general, even when compared to the rest of Europe. I blame Nouvelle Cuisine.

Quote from: frunk on April 14, 2011, 10:35:31 AM
The people in the second picture look like they are wearing bulky fire resistant clothing.  I can't really tell how thin they are.

So do they people in the first picture.  Fire resistant clothing really isn't bulky at all, it's made of three thin layers at most.  It's nothing like what firefighters wear.

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 10:38:45 AM
Should it have weight?  Of course.  Should it trump any other theory?  That would imply that we know everything there is to know about nutritional science, and that federal government is a good judge of what it is.  I'm doubtful about both, personally.

I do think that we're still in the dark age when it comes to nutritional sicence, and thus no one has the absolute authority to dismiss any theory outright, unless it is self-contradictory.  People are still bulging at alarming rates, so whatever we do know is either incomplete, or impractical to implement.

I guess the issue people have here (and certainly I do) is that you seem to be equating Taube's theory with scientific theory.  It is very common for laymen to fail to recognize the difference between "'theory" as used in common parlance, meaning "guess" (like conclusions of opinion pieces) for which evidence of proof is sought, and the scientific use of "'theory" which is an explanation for outputs  of certain inputs, usually containing a prediction of future outputs based on future inputs, and for which evidence of disproof is sought.

You are correct to say that no theory can be dismissed out of hand, but you need to decide which kind of theory you want to discuss.  You cannot elevate Taube's "theory" to the status of scientific theory by mere assertion.  Science and Taube seem to be mutually exclusive.

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 10:43:12 AM

Quote from: frunk on April 14, 2011, 10:35:31 AM
The people in the second picture look like they are wearing bulky fire resistant clothing.  I can't really tell how thin they are.

So do they people in the first picture.  Fire resistant clothing really isn't bulky at all, it's made of three thin layers at most.  It's nothing like what firefighters wear.

I don't think you are going to convince people that the difference in clothing types doesn't make a difference in perception of sizes.  The guys in the first photo don't look like "a whale on very fat legs" and showing an ambiguous picture doesn't evidence the point disproven by the first photo.

I'd bail on this argument, if I were you.  Following the CC route never pays off. 

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 10:38:45 AM

Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2011, 10:25:25 AM
Well, to start, much as I'd like to take credit for the starling notion that eating more is more likely to make one fat, it isn't *my* theory. Read the link. It is, evidently, the conclusion come to by the folks at the US Department of Health and Human Services, based on a bunch of research that is described in the link. There are chapter headings entitled "Short-term studies show that people eat more when they are confronted with larger portion sizes".

Now I know that common sense, combined with clinical research by scientists, should not weigh against the inspired writings of a man like Gary Taubes, who has in the past demonstrated in his infinite wisdom total indifference to either, but still ...  :D

Should it have weight?  Of course.  Should it trump any other theory?  That would imply that we know everything there is to know about nutritional science, and that federal government is a good judge of what it is.  I'm doubtful about both, personally.

I do think that we're still in the dark age when it comes to nutritional sicence, and thus no one has the absolute authority to dismiss any theory outright, unless it is self-contradictory.  People are still bulging at alarming rates, so whatever we do know is either incomplete, or impractical to implement.

Heh, it's like the conversation I overheard in the firm's lunch room the other day: a 320 pound administrative assistant complaining to her buddy, "I just can't seem to lose weight - I dunno what's wrong, must be my glands" - while busy scarfing down an entire box of donuts.

Well, lady (ran the inner monologue), it is no fucking mystery why you are so fat, if you regularly eat boxes of donuts as desert at lunch, and work in a job where you mostly sit on your ass all day, is it? 

This "diet mystery" is just about the same, only writ large. There is no 'mystery". People on average eat more and are more sedentary now then ever before. One would expect them, on average, to be fatter, and lo and behold ...

Now, that being said, if some serious scientist came up with some evidence to contradict the obvious, I'd give him or her a hearing. Sometimes what appears "obvious" to everyone is wrong. But such is not the case here. The serious scientists all appear to confirm the obvious.

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 09:43:46 AM
Sugar ban is a lot like smoking ban.

Indeed, in that anyone who supports it is a busybody and a cunt.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 14, 2011, 06:02:11 AM

I completely disagree. Start running five miles a day and you are going to lose some weight unless you start doing something crazy. Watching a five minute ab video may be less effective.

Obviously so. It matters far less than what you eat.

Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2011, 10:51:53 AM
Heh, it's like the conversation I overheard in the firm's lunch room the other day: a 320 pound administrative assistant complaining to her buddy, "I just can't seem to lose weight - I dunno what's wrong, must be my glands" - while busy scarfing down an entire box of donuts.

Well, lady (ran the inner monologue), it is no fucking mystery why you are so fat, if you regularly eat boxes of donuts as desert at lunch, and work in a job where you mostly sit on your ass all day, is it? 

This "diet mystery" is just about the same, only writ large. There is no 'mystery". People on average eat more and are more sedentary now then ever before. One would expect them, on average, to be fatter, and lo and behold ...

Now, that being said, if some serious scientist came up with some evidence to contradict the obvious, I'd give him or her a hearing. Sometimes what appears "obvious" to everyone is wrong. But such is not the case here. The serious scientists all appear to confirm the obvious.

Even if "eat less, excercise more" theory is obvious and correct, it still may be far from the end of it. 

For example, some foods may fool your brain's appetite control system.  That makes you crave more food, and thus you eat more.  You can say that "Ha, you're eating more, of course you're going to get fatter.  Eat less." 

That would be correct, after all the actual eating part is what makes one fat, but I would still say that it would be silly to just discount the factor that started the sequence of events and just stop with "Eat less."  When it comes to developing a workable solution, avoiding that food would be far more practical than controlling your craving for the rest of your life.

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 10:29:10 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2011, 10:21:33 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 09:33:18 AM
If you watch NASCAR now, pretty much every crew member looks like a whale on very fat legs, and it's not muscle.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.nj.com%2Frutgers_football%2F2009%2F06%2Flarge_milan.jpg&hash=b4e618783d93e2875ec6aebb769cf904375b80b3)  :huh:

Maybe some glasses would help.  That also opens the possibility that your eyesight is misleading you as to how your scale reads, and that maybe you didn't lose all that weight when you quit taking in foods with sugars added.

We can all play that game.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.losangeles.uscgnews.com%2Fclients%2Fc834%2F37531.jpg&hash=0caadd86d54ef4dcb9d74899713e3d2bcf7754d6)

The difference is that my picture is more like what you would typically see, at least on TV.

:huh: The two guys on the tires in particular look lean and muscular, if anything.  The only one who looks "big" is the guy holding the tank up in the air, so I'd assume that's more muscle than fat.

And yeah, I screwed up the mono/di/polysaccharides bad.  I'm bailing from that one. :blush:

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 11:10:47 AM
Even if "eat less, excercise more" theory is obvious and correct, it still may be far from the end of it. 

For example, some foods may fool your brain's appetite control system.  That makes you crave more food, and thus you eat more.  You can say that "Ha, you're eating more, of course you're going to get fatter.  Eat less." 

That would be correct, after all the actual eating part is what makes one fat, but I would still say that it would be silly to just discount the factor that started the sequence of events and just stop with "Eat less."  When it comes to developing a workable solution, avoiding that food would be far more practical than controlling your craving for the rest of your life.

Or one could just eat healthy food and exercise and not worry about whether their brain is somehow being fooled.

I don't know which is true, if Aspartame is benign or what ever. But the part about it possibly causing weight gain I see talked about a lot, and if true, it goes against those who want to ban sugars and have people use substitutes.    :unsure:

Quote
http://www.susunweed.com/herbal_ezine/June05/anti-cancer.htm

Anti-Cancer Lifestyle ...
Avoid Aspartame
Excerpt from Death by Modern Medicine
by Dr. Carolyn Dean
   

        Sugar versus Aspartame
        Children's Movement for Creative Education (CMCE) provides teaching modules for inner-city schools in New York. I'm on the board of CMCE, and in one Brooklyn school, much like I did on the Dini Petty show, I demonstrated the ten teaspoons of sugar in a can of pop and the twenty-seven teaspoons in a milkshake to a grade 6 class.

        These kids immediately got the message but then said they would switch to diet pop. I told them, and I'm telling you, to not be fooled into switching from sugar to sugar-free substitutes; they're even unhealthier than sugar! Aspartame (Nutrasweet) is a neurotoxin and should be avoided like the plague. Aspartame has been shown to cause birth defects, brain tumors and seizures, and to contribute to diabetes and emotional disorders.

        Avoid Aspartame, a Genuine Food Adulterant
        Aspartame has three components: phenylalanine, aspartic acid, and methanol (wood alcohol). Those who promote and sell this ubiquitous artificial sweetener state that the two amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, are a harmless and natural part of our diet contained in protein foods. This is one of the many half-truths about aspartame.

        Phenylalanine and aspartic acid are naturally occurring amino acids (the building blocks of protein) but are always in combination with other amino acids that neutralize their effects when they occur in protein. Our bodies and brains are not equipped to handle the high concentrations found in a diet soda. In that form they are concentrated enough to disrupt nerve cell communication and can cause cell death.

        Art by Stephanie RodriguezThe neurotoxic effects of these isolated amino acids can be linked to migraines, mental confusion, balance problems, and seizures. Read neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock's book Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, which describes the dangerous effects of aspartame as well as MSG on sensitive brain cells. (www.russellblaylockmd.com)

        Methanol in Aspartame Causes Blindness
        Methanol, too, is naturally present in fruits and vegetables, but these foods also contain ethanol, which neutralizes the methanol. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines safe consumption of methanol as no more than 7.8 mg per day of this dangerous substance. Yet, a one-liter beverage sweetened with aspartame contains about 56 milligrams of wood alcohol, or seven times the EPA safety limit.

        Aspartame Causes Food Cravings
        The absolute irony of the use of aspartame in diet products is that it can actually cause weight gain. Phenylalanine and aspartic acid stimulate the release of insulin. Rapid, strong spikes in insulin remove all glucose from the blood stream and store it as fat. This can result in hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and sugar cravings.

        Additionally, phenylalanine has been demonstrated to inhibit synthesis of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which signals that the body is full.8 This can cause you to eat more than you normally would and, ultimately, gain weight. In a recent study, a control group switching to an aspartame-free diet resulted in an average weight loss of nineteen pounds.9

        Dr. Betty Martini
        For the best education on aspartame, go to dorway.com and read about the tireless work of Betty Martini, founder of Mission Possible, a worldwide anti-aspartame activist group. This very powerful woman has probably helped thousands of people regain their health by warning them about the dangers of aspartame. On dorway.com you will find the paper trail that led to the approval of aspartame despite epileptic seizures and brain tumors in test animals. You will also learn about the ninety-two aspartame side effects that have been reported to the FDA.

        Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World
        Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World is a 2004 documentary by Cori Brackett, who begins the film with her own miraculous recovery from multiple sclerosis once she threw away aspartame-sweetened products. Ms. Brackett interviews Dr. Russell Blaylock and Dr. Betty Martini, victims of aspartame poisoning, and Arthur Evangelista, a former Food and Drug Administration investigator, who confirms the dirty tricks played to approve aspartame around the world.

        Excerpt from Death by Modern Medicine by Dr. Carolyn Dean

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 11:46:23 AM
Or one could just eat healthy food and exercise and not worry about whether their brain is somehow being fooled.

Another problem I have with "eat less, excercise me, that's all there is to it" is that it ignores practicality.  This has been the mantra for a while.  How's that working out for us?

Sure, if you eat healthy and exercise, you'll probably avoid the danger factors, you are unlikely to be fat if you stick to it.  However, if you can avoid the danger factors with far less effort, what's wrong with that? 

Maybe some kinds of junk foods aren't really that bad, and only certain junk foods are highly damaging.  It sure is easier to stick to a diet that allows for some junk food, than to just religiously stick to healthy food.  If you can come up with a theory that work just as well, or almost as well, but requires far less energy to stick to, that's a big win. 

Quote from: KRonn on April 14, 2011, 12:03:04 PM
I don't know which is true, if Aspartame is benign or what ever. But the part about it possibly causing weight gain I see talked about a lot, and if true, it goes against those who want to ban sugars and have people use substitutes.    :unsure:

I don't think that artificial sweeteners are a solution to the sugar problem.  In my case, diet soda just reminded me of what I was missing, and how much better the stuff I was missing tasted. 

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 11:10:47 AM
Even if "eat less, excercise more" theory is obvious and correct, it still may be far from the end of it. 

For example, some foods may fool your brain's appetite control system.  That makes you crave more food, and thus you eat more.  You can say that "Ha, you're eating more, of course you're going to get fatter.  Eat less." 

That would be correct, after all the actual eating part is what makes one fat, but I would still say that it would be silly to just discount the factor that started the sequence of events and just stop with "Eat less."  When it comes to developing a workable solution, avoiding that food would be far more practical than controlling your craving for the rest of your life.

As someone who was sedentary but now isn't I can say that it works two ways. It isn't pleasant to get into shape, but if you regularly exercise, you feel gross if you don't. And a supersized portion of McDonald's seems a lot less appealing.

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 12:07:54 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 11:46:23 AM
Or one could just eat healthy food and exercise and not worry about whether their brain is somehow being fooled.

Another problem I have with "eat less, excercise me, that's all there is to it" is that it ignores practicality.  This has been the mantra for a while.  How's that working out for us?

Sure, if you eat healthy and exercise, you'll probably avoid the danger factors, you are unlikely to be fat if you stick to it.  However, if you can avoid the danger factors with far less effort, what's wrong with that? 

Maybe some kinds of junk foods aren't really that bad, and only certain junk foods are highly damaging.  It sure is easier to stick to a diet that allows for some junk food, than to just religiously stick to healthy food.  If you can come up with a theory that work just as well, or almost as well, but requires far less energy to stick to, that's a big win.

The eat less exercise more mantra seems to work for those that follow it. You can't blame the mantra for what happens to people who ignore it.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 14, 2011, 12:17:19 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 12:07:54 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 11:46:23 AM
Or one could just eat healthy food and exercise and not worry about whether their brain is somehow being fooled.

Another problem I have with "eat less, excercise me, that's all there is to it" is that it ignores practicality.  This has been the mantra for a while.  How's that working out for us?

Sure, if you eat healthy and exercise, you'll probably avoid the danger factors, you are unlikely to be fat if you stick to it.  However, if you can avoid the danger factors with far less effort, what's wrong with that? 

Maybe some kinds of junk foods aren't really that bad, and only certain junk foods are highly damaging.  It sure is easier to stick to a diet that allows for some junk food, than to just religiously stick to healthy food.  If you can come up with a theory that work just as well, or almost as well, but requires far less energy to stick to, that's a big win.

Long.

http://www.mensjournal.com/everything-you-know-about-fitness-is-a-lie

Quote from: alfred russel on April 14, 2011, 12:17:19 PM
The eat less exercise more mantra seems to work for those that follow it. You can't blame the mantra for what happens to people who ignore it.

That kind of misses the whole point I made about how easy it is to follow, I would think. 

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 12:07:54 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 11:46:23 AM
Or one could just eat healthy food and exercise and not worry about whether their brain is somehow being fooled.

Another problem I have with "eat less, excercise me, that's all there is to it" is that it ignores practicality.  This has been the mantra for a while.  How's that working out for us?

Sure, if you eat healthy and exercise, you'll probably avoid the danger factors, you are unlikely to be fat if you stick to it.  However, if you can avoid the danger factors with far less effort, what's wrong with that? 

Maybe some kinds of junk foods aren't really that bad, and only certain junk foods are highly damaging.  It sure is easier to stick to a diet that allows for some junk food, than to just religiously stick to healthy food.  If you can come up with a theory that work just as well, or almost as well, but requires far less energy to stick to, that's a big win. 

There's nothing that's more practical than exercising more and eating less.  It's actually simpler than worring about exactly what chemical are in a particular food.  People don't do it because they don't want to do it, not because it's not practical.

Of course, the same thing happens with other methods as well.  People cut out sweets, or fats, or whatever happens to be the thing that the current pseudo-scientific fad diet says that you're supposed to cut out, and have some success with it for a while, but they don't stick with it, and gain the weight back.

Quote from: dps on April 14, 2011, 12:52:08 PM
There's nothing that's more practical than exercising more and eating less.  It's actually simpler than worring about exactly what chemical are in a particular food.  People don't do it because they don't want to do it, not because it's not practical.

That's exactly what I mean by practical.  If some method requires will power than only few people possess, then it's not practical.  In practice that method, as effective as it can be, will not be used regularly.

You can quit smoking as well just by not smoking anymore.  Some people can do it.  However, that's not the most practical way to quit, especially for a heavy smoker.  We'd have a lot more smokers these days if all we did to help people quit is to implore them to have more will power.

Every smoker that I've known who has successfully quit did it cold turkey, without any medical aid.  Admittedly, that's just anecdotal, and a small sample size.

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 12:07:54 PM
Another problem I have with "eat less, excercise me, that's all there is to it" is that it ignores practicality.  This has been the mantra for a while.  How's that working out for us?

Maybe if people stopped making it a mantra and actually did it things would work out better.  You sound like the secretary in Malthus' office who is mystified as to why she cant lose weight has she shoves a box of donuts into her mouth on a daily basis.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 01:26:35 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 12:07:54 PM
Another problem I have with "eat less, excercise me, that's all there is to it" is that it ignores practicality.  This has been the mantra for a while.  How's that working out for us?

Maybe if people stopped making it a mantra and actually did it things would work out better.  You sound like the secretary in Malthus' office who is mystified as to why she cant lose weight has she shoves a box of donuts into her mouth on a daily basis.

I hope I sound like someone who is interested in finding a systemic solution that works for most people, because that's how I approach this.  We obviously don't have one, because we have plenty of fat people and it's getting worse.

A lot of fat people that eat more then they should and dont exercise as much as they should.  The sytem you are looking for is something that will force people to do less of the former and more of the latter.  Lots of people make lots of money selling that "system" and yet we still have a lot of fat people.  Why is that?  because at the end of the day food is plentiful and excerise is hard to do for a fat person.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 01:38:42 PM
A lot of fat people that eat more then they should and dont exercise as much as they should.  The sytem you are looking for is something that will force people to do less of the former and more of the latter.  Lots of people make lots of money selling that "system" and yet we still have a lot of fat people.  Why is that?  because at the end of the day food is plentiful and excerise is hard to do for a fat person.

Yes but that was all still true in the 70s and 80s and we were alot thinner.  That is what I do not get.

But maybe it is the tendency to eat out more as Brazen said.

You have to punish the fat. It's like sluts.

Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 02:11:56 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 01:38:42 PM
A lot of fat people that eat more then they should and dont exercise as much as they should.  The sytem you are looking for is something that will force people to do less of the former and more of the latter.  Lots of people make lots of money selling that "system" and yet we still have a lot of fat people.  Why is that?  because at the end of the day food is plentiful and excerise is hard to do for a fat person.

Yes but that was all still true in the 70s and 80s and we were alot thinner.  That is what I do not get.

But maybe it is the tendency to eat out more as Brazen said.

For sure it is.  People are not eating too much unhealthy food and they are not exercising more to offset the shit they are putting into their bodies.  There is no mystery here.

Quote from: dps on April 14, 2011, 01:23:41 PM
Every smoker that I've known who has successfully quit did it cold turkey, without any medical aid.  Admittedly, that's just anecdotal, and a small sample size.

That's what I did. I quit more than five years ago, cold turkey.

Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 02:11:56 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 01:38:42 PM
A lot of fat people that eat more then they should and dont exercise as much as they should.  The sytem you are looking for is something that will force people to do less of the former and more of the latter.  Lots of people make lots of money selling that "system" and yet we still have a lot of fat people.  Why is that?  because at the end of the day food is plentiful and excerise is hard to do for a fat person.

Yes but that was all still true in the 70s and 80s and we were alot thinner.  That is what I do not get.

But maybe it is the tendency to eat out more as Brazen said.

Increased portion sizes on nearly everything over the last 30 plus years.

Portion sizes just doesn't sound plausible.  How many people eat out with any sort of regularity?  I agree that portion sizes are ridiculous, but over-eating once a week doesn't seem like an efficient way to get fat.  Chugging a 2-liter bottle of soda a day is another matter entirely.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 02:14:43 PM
For sure it is.  People are not eating too much unhealthy food and they are not exercising more to offset the shit they are putting into their bodies.  There is no mystery here.

But why?  Are you suggesting the people of the 1980s were morally superior and self denying?  I was there and I assure you we were not :P

Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2011, 02:43:14 PM
Increased portion sizes on nearly everything over the last 30 plus years.

Might be something to that.  I have noticed plates in restaurants getting bigger and bigger.  In some places they are practically serving dishes now.

Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 02:50:27 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 02:14:43 PM
For sure it is.  People are not eating too much unhealthy food and they are not exercising more to offset the shit they are putting into their bodies.  There is no mystery here.

But why?  Are you suggesting the people of the 1980s were morally superior and self denying?  I was there and I assure you we were not :P

I am suggesting that the food choices people had were superior.  There was far less prefab garbage masquerading as real food back then.

edit: also, come to think of it, yes people also had superior eating habits in general.

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 02:45:39 PM
Portion sizes just doesn't sound plausible.  How many people eat out with any sort of regularity?  I agree that portion sizes are ridiculous, but over-eating once a week doesn't seem like an efficient way to get fat.  Chugging a 2-liter bottle of soda a day is another matter entirely.

One would assume that if one is accustomed to large portion sizes away from home they would increase their portion sizes at home think that the restaurant one is the standard. At least that's what i would think, but i could be dead wrong.

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 02:45:39 PM
Portion sizes just doesn't sound plausible.  How many people eat out with any sort of regularity?  I agree that portion sizes are ridiculous, but over-eating once a week doesn't seem like an efficient way to get fat.  Chugging a 2-liter bottle of soda a day is another matter entirely.

First, some people (such as those who work outside the home) eat out far more frequently than you might think - at my office, practically everyone except me eats lunch in the food court. I brown-bag lunch, but that is unusual.

Second, increased portion sizes doesn't apply only to eating out. It can be seen in such things as the size of bags of chips or ready-to-eat meals of various sorts.

Both of these are based on more than anecdote, there is ample evidence that portion sizes have increased over the last few decades. See the link above.

Basically, people prepare food from scratch less then they used to, relying more on either premade meals of various sorts, or eating out; and when they do, the amounts of food considered to be 'one individual serving' is larger than it used to be.

Studies (quoted above) demonstrate that, when a larger meal is put in front of people, people tend to eat more than they otherwise would with a smaller meal. For example, if a meal consists of a sandwich of size X for lunch, they tend to eat the whole thing; if later they have a sandwich of size X + 1/3 X, they will tend to eat the whole thing again, rather than throwing out the extra 1/3 X.

Thus, increased portion sizes leads to fatter people.

Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 02:51:35 PM

Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2011, 02:43:14 PM
Increased portion sizes on nearly everything over the last 30 plus years.

Might be something to that.  I have noticed plates in restaurants getting bigger and bigger.  In some places they are practically serving dishes now.

As I said above, this process is further advanced in the US than in Canada. When I travel to the US with the family, on occasion I have literally ordered what would be suitable on paper for a single person (appetizer, main and desert) and fed my whole family on it - two adults and a kid - with food left over. 

Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2011, 03:01:10 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 02:51:35 PM

Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2011, 02:43:14 PM
Increased portion sizes on nearly everything over the last 30 plus years.

Might be something to that.  I have noticed plates in restaurants getting bigger and bigger.  In some places they are practically serving dishes now.

As I said above, this process is further advanced in the US than in Canada. When I travel to the US with the family, on occasion I have literally ordered what would be suitable on paper for a single person (appetizer, main and desert) and fed my whole family on it - two adults and a kid - with food left over.

Naturally American christian babies are fatter now than they have been. That's kind of what we are discussing. :huh:

Quote from: The Brain on April 14, 2011, 03:02:31 PM
Naturally American christian babies are fatter now than they have been. That's kind of what we are discussing. :huh:

Silly man. I don't feed my family Christian babies.  :huh:

Those tidbits I reserve for myself.

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 02:45:39 PM
Portion sizes just doesn't sound plausible.  How many people eat out with any sort of regularity?  I agree that portion sizes are ridiculous, but over-eating once a week doesn't seem like an efficient way to get fat.  Chugging a 2-liter bottle of soda a day is another matter entirely.

Chugging 2-liter bottles of soda every day doesn't sound plausible.

Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2011, 03:14:26 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 02:45:39 PM
Portion sizes just doesn't sound plausible.  How many people eat out with any sort of regularity?  I agree that portion sizes are ridiculous, but over-eating once a week doesn't seem like an efficient way to get fat.  Chugging a 2-liter bottle of soda a day is another matter entirely.

Chugging 2-liter bottles of soda every day doesn't sound plausible.

i knew someone wo did. little French Canadian guy in my class. Scrawny too. Must have had diabetes or something :lol:

I did close to that for many years.  :huh:  That's just 6-8 glasses a day.  If you drink that instead of water, that's just the recommended daily fluid intake.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 02:52:53 PM
I am suggesting that the food choices people had were superior.  There was far less prefab garbage masquerading as real food back then.

edit: also, come to think of it, yes people also had superior eating habits in general.

People are becoming worse as time goes by :(

Wait no you are saying the food we are provided with is worse :blush:

Americans stopped acting in a plausible manner generations ago.

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 03:22:49 PM
I did close to that for many years.  :huh:  That's just 6-8 glasses a day.  If you drink that instead of water, that's just the recommended daily fluid intake.

i'm thinking more along the lines of sugar intake, not liquid intake.

Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 02:11:56 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 01:38:42 PM
A lot of fat people that eat more then they should and dont exercise as much as they should.  The sytem you are looking for is something that will force people to do less of the former and more of the latter.  Lots of people make lots of money selling that "system" and yet we still have a lot of fat people.  Why is that?  because at the end of the day food is plentiful and excerise is hard to do for a fat person.

Yes but that was all still true in the 70s and 80s and we were alot thinner.  That is what I do not get.

But maybe it is the tendency to eat out more as Brazen said.

You have to look at how much society has changed. Video games and computers are much more available and popular than the 70's and 80's. Cars are more available for transportation. People just don't have the need or desire to exercise as much as they did in the 70's and 80's, and entertainment is more geared towards non-physical participation.

There's no doubt in my mind that people, particularly young people, are much less physically active now than they were when I was a kid.  For kids at least, it wasn't called exercise back then, it was just getting outside and playing.  Certainly, children still do that, but not nearly as much as we used to.  And parents weren't as fearful of letting us out of their sight as they are now.  From about ages 6 or 7, we had bikes and we'd ride them all over town.  It wasn't anything at all out of the ordinary to bike to a friend's house several neighborhoods away, or to walk to a movie or to ball practice.  As long as your parents thought you we careful to look each way before you crossed the street, they weren't worried about your safety--and if they didn't think you were responsible enough to look both ways, you just got told you couldn't go--unless it was a special occassion like your friend's birthday party, they sure weren't going to take time out from their schedule to drive you somewhere to play.

And speaking of special occasions like birthdays, well, special occasions were almost the only times we ate out.  Now, I know plenty of people who eat out for at least one meal a day, and often 2 or 3 times a day.

And yes, portion have gotten a lot bigger, too, even with just beverages.  When you were at your friend's house playing, when you'd take a break and go inside to get something to drink, your friend's mom would get two glasses, fill 'em up with ice cubes, and then poor a soft drink into them.  With all that ice, it wouldn't take but about half of a 16 oz bottle to fill both glasses, and the rest got put back in the refrigerator for the next day.  Now, everybody gets their own 20 or 24 oz drink, and goes through 2 or more of those a day.

I'm sure you're right, dps, but that kind of reasoning has been made utterly worthless since all I can think about when I hear it is a wrinkly old prune with his face full of liver spots, shaking his cane at the world.  :P

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 02:45:39 PM
Portion sizes just doesn't sound plausible.  How many people eat out with any sort of regularity?  I agree that portion sizes are ridiculous, but over-eating once a week doesn't seem like an efficient way to get fat.  Chugging a 2-liter bottle of soda a day is another matter entirely.

So the invention of Coca-Cola in the late 1980s is the cause of the epidemic?

Quote from: HVC on April 14, 2011, 03:19:21 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2011, 03:14:26 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 02:45:39 PM
Portion sizes just doesn't sound plausible.  How many people eat out with any sort of regularity?  I agree that portion sizes are ridiculous, but over-eating once a week doesn't seem like an efficient way to get fat.  Chugging a 2-liter bottle of soda a day is another matter entirely.

Chugging 2-liter bottles of soda every day doesn't sound plausible.

i knew someone wo did. little French Canadian guy in my class. Scrawny too. Must have had diabetes or something :lol:

I survived on a diet composed primarily of Mountain Dew through High School. 2 liters a day is probably not far off...


And yeah, I was scrawny and hypoglycemic. I can't stand sugary stuff now.

Quote from: Strix on April 14, 2011, 03:40:20 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2011, 02:11:56 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 01:38:42 PM
A lot of fat people that eat more then they should and dont exercise as much as they should.  The sytem you are looking for is something that will force people to do less of the former and more of the latter.  Lots of people make lots of money selling that "system" and yet we still have a lot of fat people.  Why is that?  because at the end of the day food is plentiful and excerise is hard to do for a fat person.

Yes but that was all still true in the 70s and 80s and we were alot thinner.  That is what I do not get.

But maybe it is the tendency to eat out more as Brazen said.

You have to look at how much society has changed. Video games and computers are much more available and popular than the 70's and 80's. Cars are more available for transportation. People just don't have the need or desire to exercise as much as they did in the 70's and 80's, and entertainment is more geared towards non-physical participation.

I think this is the answer. If you take away video games, computers, and all be 5 TV stations, activities that require movement might not seem so horrible. If we went back to those days, I know I would consider hanging mself or jumping from a tall building.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 14, 2011, 05:24:54 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 02:45:39 PM
Portion sizes just doesn't sound plausible.  How many people eat out with any sort of regularity?  I agree that portion sizes are ridiculous, but over-eating once a week doesn't seem like an efficient way to get fat.  Chugging a 2-liter bottle of soda a day is another matter entirely.

So the invention of Coca-Cola in the late 1980s is the cause of the epidemic?

I dont think there was such a thing as a 2 litre bottle of any pop when I was a kid. And pop was something I got on special occasions or if I made enough money (cutting people's lawns etc) to buy my own.  And even then I jumped on my bike to go to the corner store to buy it - nevermind the physical work required to earn the money to buy the pop.

Now it seems a staple of kid's diets.

If I have to get up and turn the knob to change the channel again, I'm climbing a clock tower with a rifle.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 14, 2011, 05:37:53 PM
If I have to get up and turn the knob to change the channel again, I'm climbing a clock tower with a rifle.

Empty threat.  You would never make it to the top lardass.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 05:38:50 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 14, 2011, 05:37:53 PM
If I have to get up and turn the knob to change the channel again, I'm climbing a clock tower with a rifle.

Empty threat.  You would never make it to the top lardass.

His child bride would push his wheelchair up there.

It seems like soda serving sizes in particular have increased a ton in the last 30 years.  From the 8oz bottle being standard to the 12oz can to the 20oz bottle that is virtually standard today.  Even 24oz single-serving plastic bottles are unremarkable these days. 

Last year, I noticed they were rolling out a variety of sodas in 16oz tallboy cans for 99 cents.  Plus all of those 24oz Arizona iced teas and what not that are loaded with sugar.  And now the 1 liter family bottle of yore (which you still see in Europe, IIRC) has become the 2 liter by default, if not the 3 liter bottles of discount soda.  To say nothing of the soda servings at convenience stores (e.g. the 44oz Double Big Gulp at 7-11) or fast food restaurants.

I remember reading somewhere that the percentage of calories from soft drinks in the average American's diet is one of the things that has really taken off dramatically, which is easy to believe.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 14, 2011, 05:41:41 PM
It seems like soda serving sizes in particular have increased a ton in the last 30 years.  From the 8oz bottle being standard to the 12oz can to the 20oz bottle that is virtually standard today.  Even 24oz single-serving plastic bottles are unremarkable these days. 

Last year, I noticed they were rolling out a variety of sodas in 16oz tallboy cans for 99 cents.  Plus all of those 24oz Arizona iced teas and what not that are loaded with sugar.  And now the 1 liter family bottle of yore (which you still see in Europe, IIRC) has become the 2 liter by default, if not the 3 liter bottles of discount soda.  To say nothing of the soda servings at convenience stores (e.g. the 44oz Double Big Gulp at 7-11) or fast food restaurants.

I remember reading somewhere that the percentage of calories from soft drinks in the average American's diet is one of the things that has really taken off dramatically, which is easy to believe.

Indirect Govt subsidy of corn syrup ?

Have to get rid of the shit somehow.

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 03:22:49 PM
I did close to that for many years.  :huh:  That's just 6-8 glasses a day.  If you drink that instead of water, that's just the recommended daily fluid intake.

I think we have learned to take your personal observations as non-standard.  68 ounces of soda per day is about four times the national average consumption for all sweetened drinks.  It is not credible that consumption at that level is responsible for the obesity epidemic (though surely anyone consuming at that level risks obesity amongst the many other problems resulting from, and responsible for, such behaviors).

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 14, 2011, 05:41:41 PM
It seems like soda serving sizes in particular have increased a ton in the last 30 years.  From the 8oz bottle being standard to the 12oz can to the 20oz bottle that is virtually standard today.  Even 24oz single-serving plastic bottles are unremarkable these days. 

Last year, I noticed they were rolling out a variety of sodas in 16oz tallboy cans for 99 cents.  Plus all of those 24oz Arizona iced teas and what not that are loaded with sugar.  And now the 1 liter family bottle of yore (which you still see in Europe, IIRC) has become the 2 liter by default, if not the 3 liter bottles of discount soda.  To say nothing of the soda servings at convenience stores (e.g. the 44oz Double Big Gulp at 7-11) or fast food restaurants.

I remember reading somewhere that the percentage of calories from soft drinks in the average American's diet is one of the things that has really taken off dramatically, which is easy to believe.

I think that the number of calories per take taken in via sugared drinks is, as you note, up vastly from 30 years ago.  I also think the intake from fat is vastly greater than 30 years ago, as well.  I seem to recall that over 50% of all calories sold by McD's are fat calories, and that they are pretty typical of fast-food places in general.

Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2011, 06:02:57 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 03:22:49 PM
I did close to that for many years.  :huh:  That's just 6-8 glasses a day.  If you drink that instead of water, that's just the recommended daily fluid intake.

I think we have learned to take your personal observations as non-standard.  68 ounces of soda per day is about four times the national average consumption for all sweetened drinks.  It is not credible that consumption at that level is responsible for the obesity epidemic (though surely anyone consuming at that level risks obesity amongst the many other problems resulting from, and responsible for, such behaviors).

From a statistical standpoint, consumption of soda is probably a skewed distribution.  In a skewed distribution with a reasonable standard deviation, four times the average is far from implausible for a significant portion of the population.

For example, on average about 3 cigarettes are smoked per day per capita in US.  Is it implausible that someone smokes 12 or more cigarettes per day?

Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2011, 03:14:26 PM

Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 02:45:39 PM
Portion sizes just doesn't sound plausible.  How many people eat out with any sort of regularity?  I agree that portion sizes are ridiculous, but over-eating once a week doesn't seem like an efficient way to get fat.  Chugging a 2-liter bottle of soda a day is another matter entirely.

Chugging 2-liter bottles of soda every day doesn't sound plausible.

I drink roughly 4.2 liters of soda every day.  Diet, though.

I welcome the obesity apocalypse.  It has more drawbacks than killing every man in the world over 4'6" or turning them all homosexual with gamma rays, but it's far more practical. :wub:

Quote from: crazy canuckI dont think there was such a thing as a 2 litre bottle of any pop when I was a kid. And pop was something I got on special occasions or if I made enough money (cutting people's lawns etc) to buy my own.  And even then I jumped on my bike to go to the corner store to buy it - nevermind the physical work required to earn the money to buy the pop.

Good God, where did you grow up?  Post-war Berlin?

Worse. Canada.

I should start a Children's Soda Fund.

Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 06:49:16 PM
I should start a Children's Soda Fund.

That'll go good with Derek Zoolander's School For Kids Who Can't Read Good (and want to learn how to do other things good).

Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 06:38:30 PM
I drink roughly 4.2 liters of soda every day.  Diet, though.

Good God man, where did you grow up.

Oh ya, never mind.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 07:17:51 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 06:38:30 PM
I drink roughly 4.2 liters of soda every day.  Diet, though.

Good God man, where did you grow up.

Oh ya, never mind.

First World country?

:P

Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 07:19:59 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 07:17:51 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 06:38:30 PM
I drink roughly 4.2 liters of soda every day.  Diet, though.

Good God man, where did you grow up.

Oh ya, never mind.

First World country?

:P

I always thought a first world country was characterized by affluence.  One aspect of affluence is the ability to purchase at least basic food needs.  If you grew up in such a country it is a shame you no longer live there.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 07:22:14 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 07:19:59 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 07:17:51 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 06:38:30 PM
I drink roughly 4.2 liters of soda every day.  Diet, though.

Good God man, where did you grow up.

Oh ya, never mind.

First World country?

:P

I always thought a first world country was characterized by affluence.  One aspect of affluence is the ability to purchase at least basic food needs.  If you grew up in such a country it is a shame you no longer live there.

Soda is a basic food need. :grr:

In seriousness, I expect one reason it seems like such a large amount is because I don't drink coffee, and drink soda instead.

I think the whole "soda issue" is over rated. As a kid, I drank a ton of sugary kool-aid. It's what all parents seemed to give their kids around where I lived. When I hit my teens than it was more soda than kool-aid. Regardless, candy was real cheap back in the late 70's and early 80's, so kids could get a ton of sugary nirvana for only a couple quarters.

Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 07:24:40 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 07:22:14 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 07:19:59 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 07:17:51 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 06:38:30 PM
I drink roughly 4.2 liters of soda every day.  Diet, though.

Good God man, where did you grow up.

Oh ya, never mind.

First World country?

:P

I always thought a first world country was characterized by affluence.  One aspect of affluence is the ability to purchase at least basic food needs.  If you grew up in such a country it is a shame you no longer live there.

Soda is a basic food need. :grr:

In seriousness, I expect one reason it seems like such a large amount is because I don't drink coffee, and drink soda instead.

I sure as hell don't drink 4.2L of coffee. :huh:

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2011, 05:35:55 PM
I dont think there was such a thing as a 2 litre bottle of any pop when I was a kid.

Pepsi introduced the 2-litre bottle in 1970.  Don't know when it made it to Canada, but I would assume pretty much the same time.

I drank non-diet soda a LOT as a teenager and was always as skinny as a rail.  Probably because I otherwise ate well and in reasonable portions, and also got a normal amount of exercise .    ;)

I drink 710ml of Pepsi everyday. That's actually down form my previous intake by a significant margin.

Quote from: Slargos on April 14, 2011, 04:58:07 PM
I'm sure you're right, dps, but that kind of reasoning has been made utterly worthless since all I can think about when I hear it is a wrinkly old prune with his face full of liver spots, shaking his cane at the world.  :P

The sad part is when that wrinkly old prune is in better shape than the average teen.  :P

Quote from: Grey Fox on April 15, 2011, 07:18:07 AM
I drink 710ml of Pepsi everyday. That's actually down form my previous intake by a significant margin.

That's a very precise amount  :huh:

Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 06:38:30 PM
I drink roughly 4.2 liters of soda every day.  Diet, though.

I couldn't drink that much of anything in a day. It must feel like being waterboarded. Expensive too.

Quote from: Brazen on April 15, 2011, 08:57:08 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on April 15, 2011, 07:18:07 AM
I drink 710ml of Pepsi everyday. That's actually down form my previous intake by a significant margin.

That's a very precise amount  :huh:

2 x 355ml cans I presume.

I rarely drink pop.  Lost my sweet tooth several years ago I think.  Little interest in sweets in general.

Quote from: Strix on April 14, 2011, 10:02:06 PM
I think the whole "soda issue" is over rated. As a kid, I drank a ton of sugary kool-aid. It's what all parents seemed to give their kids around where I lived. When I hit my teens than it was more soda than kool-aid. Regardless, candy was real cheap back in the late 70's and early 80's, so kids could get a ton of sugary nirvana for only a couple quarters.

ya, but you used to get cane sugar. Kids these days get corn syrup. not sure how or why, but apparently it worse.

Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2011, 09:34:49 AM

Quote from: Strix on April 14, 2011, 10:02:06 PM
I think the whole "soda issue" is over rated. As a kid, I drank a ton of sugary kool-aid. It's what all parents seemed to give their kids around where I lived. When I hit my teens than it was more soda than kool-aid. Regardless, candy was real cheap back in the late 70's and early 80's, so kids could get a ton of sugary nirvana for only a couple quarters.

ya, but you used to get cane sugar. Kids these days get corn syrup. not sure how or why, but apparently it worse.

Back in the day we actually got lots of beet sugar in Canada.

Apparently now with import restrictions lifted we now get mostly cane sugar in this country.

:Canuck:

Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2011, 09:07:36 AM
2 x 355ml cans I presume.

Ah, ours are 330. I often have one to get me through a sleepy afternoon at work.

Quote from: Brazen on April 15, 2011, 09:02:07 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 06:38:30 PM
I drink roughly 4.2 liters of soda every day.  Diet, though.

I couldn't drink that much of anything in a day. It must feel like being waterboarded. Expensive too.

It's barely a gallon. :huh:

And only twelve cans (4260 mL).  Costs roughly US$2.00.  (Yeah, yeah: I don't really like paying for the constant, obtrusive advertising campaigns of brand name soda companies, and Sam Walton makes a nice phosphate.)

Quote from: BarristerI sure as hell don't drink 4.2L of coffee. :huh:

No, but you drink coffee and water.  I drink one thing that has the finer qualities of both, none of the downsides, plus delightful carbonation.

Anyway, if it turns out aspartame really can hurt a human being, I'm in a prime position to find out and recover.

You really don't believe in healthy eating do you Ideo.  :console:

Quote from: Brazen on April 15, 2011, 09:02:07 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 06:38:30 PM
I drink roughly 4.2 liters of soda every day.  Diet, though.

I couldn't drink that much of anything in a day. It must feel like being waterboarded. Expensive too.

Let's not go crazy. I drink 4 liters of water a day & I feel fine.

Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2011, 11:39:18 AM
You really don't believe in healthy eating do you Ideo.  :console:

But it's diet!

Besides, I probably do consume less fat than most folk, by default. :)

Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2011, 11:55:56 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2011, 11:39:18 AM
You really don't believe in healthy eating do you Ideo.  :console:

But it's diet!

Besides, I probably do consume less fat than most folk, by default. :)

That's hardly the beginning and end of healthy eating. :console:

Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2011, 09:07:36 AM
2 x 355ml cans I presume.

They also have 710mL bottles now.

Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2011, 09:07:36 AM

Quote from: Brazen on April 15, 2011, 08:57:08 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on April 15, 2011, 07:18:07 AM
I drink 710ml of Pepsi everyday. That's actually down form my previous intake by a significant margin.

That's a very precise amount  :huh:

2 x 355ml cans I presume.

I rarely drink pop.  Lost my sweet tooth several years ago I think.  Little interest in sweets in general.

My sweet tooth has gotten really bad in the 3 years since I quit smoking, not sure how solid the connection is though.  I still don't drink much soda but I can put a hurtin' on any cookies or candy nearby.

Especially Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. :mmm:

Quote from: sbr on April 15, 2011, 03:19:35 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2011, 09:07:36 AM

Quote from: Brazen on April 15, 2011, 08:57:08 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on April 15, 2011, 07:18:07 AM
I drink 710ml of Pepsi everyday. That's actually down form my previous intake by a significant margin.

That's a very precise amount  :huh:

2 x 355ml cans I presume.

I rarely drink pop.  Lost my sweet tooth several years ago I think.  Little interest in sweets in general.

My sweet tooth has gotten really bad in the 3 years since I quit smoking, not sure how solid the connection is though.  I still don't drink much soda but I can put a hurtin' on any cookies or candy nearby.

Especially Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. :mmm:

Reese Whitherspoon looked great in "The man on the moon".

Quote from: Siege on April 15, 2011, 03:45:41 PM

Quote from: sbr on April 15, 2011, 03:19:35 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2011, 09:07:36 AM

Quote from: Brazen on April 15, 2011, 08:57:08 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on April 15, 2011, 07:18:07 AM
I drink 710ml of Pepsi everyday. That's actually down form my previous intake by a significant margin.

That's a very precise amount  :huh:

2 x 355ml cans I presume.

I rarely drink pop.  Lost my sweet tooth several years ago I think.  Little interest in sweets in general.

My sweet tooth has gotten really bad in the 3 years since I quit smoking, not sure how solid the connection is though.  I still don't drink much soda but I can put a hurtin' on any cookies or candy nearby.

Especially Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. :mmm:

Reese Whitherspoon looked great in "The man on the moon".

Is there anything Reese didn't look great in?

Quote from: sbr on April 15, 2011, 03:48:26 PM

Quote from: Siege on April 15, 2011, 03:45:41 PM

Quote from: sbr on April 15, 2011, 03:19:35 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 15, 2011, 09:07:36 AM

Quote from: Brazen on April 15, 2011, 08:57:08 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on April 15, 2011, 07:18:07 AM
I drink 710ml of Pepsi everyday. That's actually down form my previous intake by a significant margin.

That's a very precise amount  :huh:

2 x 355ml cans I presume.

I rarely drink pop.  Lost my sweet tooth several years ago I think.  Little interest in sweets in general.

My sweet tooth has gotten really bad in the 3 years since I quit smoking, not sure how solid the connection is though.  I still don't drink much soda but I can put a hurtin' on any cookies or candy nearby.

Especially Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. :mmm:

Reese Whitherspoon looked great in "The man on the moon".

Is there anything Reese didn't look great in?

Yeah. Everything she did in the last 15 years.

Quote from: Ideologue on April 15, 2011, 10:50:16 AM

Quote from: Brazen on April 15, 2011, 09:02:07 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2011, 06:38:30 PM
I drink roughly 4.2 liters of soda every day.  Diet, though.

I couldn't drink that much of anything in a day. It must feel like being waterboarded. Expensive too.

It's barely a gallon. :huh:

And only twelve cans (4260 mL).  Costs roughly US$2.00.  (Yeah, yeah: I don't really like paying for the constant, obtrusive advertising campaigns of brand name soda companies, and Sam Walton makes a nice phosphate.)

Diet Dr. Thunder: the best fake Dr. Pepper substitute.

The best Dr. Pepper substitute is Dr. Skipper, the Safeway brand.

:cool:

No Safeways around me.  :(