Recommended Posts

^ I know that I could never drink enuff soda to gain weight. :laugh:

These 'researchers' and sugar haters are not looking at what people eat, along with the soda.

Cheeseburgers, potato chips, hot dogs, pizza, high fat foods.

Then they blame it all on the 'evil' sugar.

Refusing to accept proven facts doesn't make them any less true. Sugar is one of the biggest drivers of obesity. In fact there have been numerous reports and documentaries that explain how the US media vilified fat while adding sugar?particularly HFCS?into products. Companies were advertising products as "fat free" to make them sound healthy, when the sugar content made them incredibly calorific. Don't just take my word for the impact of sugar, though - here's a report from Harvard.

A two litre bottle of coke contains over 850 calories, which is one-third of the recommended daily calorie intake for a man. That is a huge amount of calories, yet a lot of people drink more than that each day without realising the impact it is having. A single McDonald's muffin is more than 25% of a woman's daily calorie intake and one of their large meals can be close to the full amount. As for Starbucks, the number of calories in some of their drinks is ridiculous. Some of their drinks contain over 600 calories, which is more than what previous generations ate for an entire meal.

The NYC sugary drinks ban may not be the right solution to the problem but something needs to be done. Businesses cannot be allowed to continue marketing products they know to be unhealthy for the majority of the population without consequence.

  • Like 2
I used to have 2 sugars in tea, and have coffee with condensed milk but migrated long ago to good quality (not the watered down stuff!) skimmed milk with zero sugars. Tried sugared tea (by accident) the other day and was horrible. For anyone who wants to move down, just do it slowly to one sugar and buy good quality skimmed milk (not the cheapest).

I used to have sugar and full fat milk in my tea when I was young but now all I use is 1% fat milk and I often have tea without any milk. If I try tea with sugar now it tastes wrong. As for skimmed milk, I've tried it before but I really don't like it.

Wrong. Excess glucose (sugar) is transformed by the liver into fat. In medicine, this process is part of the lipogenesis.

Odd -- I never gain weight from simple sugar.

Try my previous challenge.

i drink alot of soda. I drink diet soda becasue if I switch to regular soda I gain 5lbs a week. Tried it 3X and same result each time.

And did you write down what else you ate along with the soda ?

Refusing to accept proven facts doesn't make them any less true. Sugar is one of the biggest drivers of obesity.

This is just a load of non-sense they want you to believe.

What they call 'sugary' snacks are mostly loaded up with FAT.

Sugar is not some dangerous poison. ;)

Refusing to accept proven facts doesn't make them any less true. Sugar is one of the biggest drivers of obesity. In fact there have been numerous reports and documentaries that explain how the US media vilified fat while adding sugar?particularly HFCS?into products. Companies were advertising products as "fat free" to make them sound healthy, when the sugar content made them incredibly calorific. Don't just take my word for the impact of sugar, though - here's a report from Harvard.

A two litre bottle of coke contains over 850 calories, which is one-third of the recommended daily calorie intake for a man. That is a huge amount of calories, yet a lot of people drink more than that each day without realising the impact it is having. A single McDonald's muffin is more than 25% of a woman's daily calorie intake and one of their large meals can be close to the full amount. As for Starbucks, the number of calories in some of their drinks is ridiculous. Some of their drinks contain over 600 calories, which is more than what previous generations ate for an entire meal.

The NYC sugary drinks ban may not be the right solution to the problem but something needs to be done. Businesses cannot be allowed to continue marketing products they know to be unhealthy for the majority of the population without consequence.

please,give me a break. anyone who drinks 2 litres of coke will not stop drinking 2L of coke if it didn't come in a 2L bottle. they will drink 6 cans of coke instead.And if you make the container smaller,they will drink more of the smaller kind. Same with fast food. If you make the meals smaller,they will order more.

The problem isn't the product. The problem is people over consuming things. They are over consuming things because its convenient,cheap and tastes good. Peope work all day,the last thing they want to do is go home and make dinner.

If a family feels like eating chicken for dinner,do they A. go to the supermarket and buy lean chicken breasts and other ingredients,pay a hefty sum of money for the product,go home and waste a lot of time and using up the utilities(oven,water,dishwasher), or B.Go to KFC,get a big bucket of friend breaded chicken and creamy potatoe salad and fries for a fraction of the cost of A.? Of course B sounds much better. No mess, cheaper, and fills them up more.

There is no solution to it. We're already too far into this lifestyle that we're ****ed. Greed got in the way. Getting a nice fresh piece of fish or chicken or beef costs an arm and a leg. Electricity bills are through the roof. Jobs pay **** all. Everyday we get dinged with a bill for breathing,and all some governments can come up with is put a limit on the size of sugary treats? LOL pathetic.

  • Like 3

And did you write down what else you ate along with the soda ?

was no need to. Eating habits, job, etc stayed the same. The only things that changed each time was the sugar filled regular soda. This was retried 3 times in a year with the same results.

please,give me a break. anyone who drinks 2 litres of coke will not stop drinking 2L of coke if it didn't come in a 2L bottle. they will drink 6 cans of coke instead.And if you make the container smaller,they will drink more of the smaller kind. Same with fast food. If you make the meals smaller,they will order more.

The problem isn't the product. The problem is people over consuming things. They are over consuming things because its convenient,cheap and tastes good. Peope work all day,the last thing they want to do is go home and make dinner.

But that's what makes the sugary drink ban so effective - it makes people realise that what they're doing is unhealthy. People are much less likely to order two smaller drinks, so they'll either buy a diet drink, stick with the smaller one or get something different altogether. Anybody buying two drinks to get around the ban cannot be under the impression that what they're doing is healthy.

People have become used to large portion sizes in western culture?particularly in America but also in the UK?and something needs to be done to break that psychological barrier. If people are hungry they will often order the largest portion size, even if they don't actually need or want that much. If you restrict the calorie content of meals and drinks then anybody wanting to exceed it has to order two meals, which is where a lot of people draw the line. It's hard to appreciate the level of denial that takes place in people who are overweight, as they often play down how much of an issue it is. Social pressure is very effective at changing peoples habits and if they're effectively made to hold up a sign to the world saying "I'm a fatty because I'm ordering two drinks" then some people will change.

The sugary drinks ban needs to just be the start, though. Restaurants need to be serving portion sizes that are medically healthy - there is no good reason as to why they should be serving 1,500 calorie meals (including drinks and sides) to an average person. I appreciate that some people have greater dietary requirements (i.e. bodybuilders, athletes, etc) but making them order two meals isn't an issue because they know it is healthy for their body. A lot of people simply don't realise how unhealthy a lot of the food is that they're ordering and some gentle social pressure can make a bit difference.

People are much less likely to order two smaller drinks, so they'll either buy a diet drink, stick with the smaller one or get something different altogether. Anybody buying two drinks to get around the ban cannot be under the impression that what they're doing is healthy.

Not necessarily. If you're buying bottles, then yeah you can't get around it without paying extra. However most restaurants / fast food places in America have free refills. So you can get the small size and refill it as many times as you please.

Sugar is not the fattening agent --- high fat foods are.

Wow. That's so wrong.

^ I know that I could never drink enuff soda to gain weight. :laugh:

Actually I lost 7 pounds and counting by not drinking pop.

Findings

For each additional serving of sugar-sweetened drink consumed, both body mass index (BMI) (mean 0?24 kg/m2; 95% CI 0?10?0?39; p=0?03) and frequency of obesity (odds ratio 1?60; 95% CI 1?14?2?24; p=0?02) increased after adjustment for anthropometric, demographic, dietary, and lifestyle variables. Baseline consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks was also independently associated with change in BMI (mean 0?18 kg/m2 for each daily serving; 95% CI 0?09?0?27; p=0?02).

http://www.sciencedi...140673600040411

For boys, intakes of sugar-added beverages (? = 0.03) and diet soda (? = 0.12) were significantly associated with weight gains; there were suggestions (p < 0.06) that intakes of milk (? = 0.02) and fruit juices (? = 0.04) were also associated.

...

For boys, increasing sugar-added beverage intake from one year to the next was significantly associated (? = 0.04 per added daily serving; p = 0.01) with weight gain (Table 4), and increasing milk and diet soda intakes were weakly associated (p < 0.10) with weight gain.

http://onlinelibrary...by.2004.94/full

You're really damn dense.

i drink alot of soda. I drink diet soda becasue if I switch to regular soda I gain 5lbs a week. Tried it 3X and same result each time.

Would you say you're addicted to the caffeine? I use to get real ****y whenever I hadn't had one in awhile.

If a family feels like eating chicken for dinner,do they A. go to the supermarket and buy lean chicken breasts and other ingredients,pay a hefty sum of money for the product,go home and waste a lot of time and using up the utilities(oven,water,dishwasher), or B.Go to KFC,get a big bucket of friend breaded chicken and creamy potatoe salad and fries for a fraction of the cost of A.? Of course B sounds much better. No mess, cheaper, and fills them up more.

I can get a 3 lb bag of individually frozen, de-boned, de-skinned chicken breasts for less than 6$. Two pounds of individually wrapped, frozen fish fillets costs 8$. A head of cabbage was 0.33$/lb at the store today - a head of broccoli costs less than 3$. Carrots are usually less than a dollar a pound. A one-pound box of linguini costs less than a dollar, and tomato sauce costs almost nothing. Rice is something like less than a nickel per oz. Mushrooms can usually be found for about 1.50$/8 oz box, sliced or whole. Beef is more problematic these days - I can't find any non-bulk cuts for much less than 2.50$/lb. I wouldn't call any of those disastrously expensive though. Still, seems like people have forgotten how to buy basics.

was no need to. Eating habits, job, etc stayed the same. The only things that changed each time was the sugar filled regular soda. This was retried 3 times in a year with the same results.

ever heard of the law of conservation of energy? you know,energy cannot be created nor destroyed. you cant possibly gain weight by thin air. unless you over consume energy,you wont gain weight. impossible. cant beat physics.

Bloomberg is a communist! The dictator of New York telling people what they can and can't drink!

America is slowly becoming a communist country.

How would he be a communist? Maybe if the drinks were produced by the state, and you had no choice but to choose the state's soft drinks.

I just don't see how banning sugary drinks would be considered a Communist act.

all you guys that wanna tell others how to eat hopefully get a taste of your own medicine....

I think we should ban eating celery becuase I got hurt by one becuase it made me slip on the floor. celery could be bad for you becuase you can trip on it.

  • Like 1

ever heard of the law of conservation of energy? you know,energy cannot be created nor destroyed. you cant possibly gain weight by thin air. unless you over consume energy,you wont gain weight. impossible. cant beat physics.

Um there's a difference though.

If you were to eat 800 calories worth of meat, you'd probably feel full and not want to eat anymore. If you were to drink 800 calories of soda, you probably won't be feeling full and you'd eat food which increases the amount of calories you intake.

You can't survive purely on soda and nor can soda be a meal.

all you guys that wanna tell others how to eat hopefully get a taste of your own medicine....

I think we should ban eating celery becuase I got hurt by one becuase it made me slip on the floor. celery could be bad for you becuase you can trip on it.

I don't want to tell anyone how to eat, let alone ban foods just because some people can't help but inhale 60 donuts at once or something equally ridiculous. Last thing people need is more government control telling us what to do, what to eat, and so forth. Honestly, if you want to kill yourself with food, drugs, and so forth, go right on ahead. Nothing of value will be lossed.

Not necessarily. If you're buying bottles, then yeah you can't get around it without paying extra. However most restaurants / fast food places in America have free refills. So you can get the small size and refill it as many times as you please.

Things like that need to stop as they just encourage excessive consumption.

all you guys that wanna tell others how to eat hopefully get a taste of your own medicine....

I think we should ban eating celery becuase I got hurt by one becuase it made me slip on the floor. celery could be bad for you becuase you can trip on it.

Celery actually has an effective negative calorific value! It costs your body more calories to process and digest it that you actually get out of it. Therefore it's the LAST food you should ban!

I have read and heard on various outlets that fructose period,gets absorbed and stored as fat. Sucrose and sucralose both can't be absorbed but goes from mouth to toilet without being absorbed. Sugar is natural but probably bad in excess. I have studied and read both sides on this issue but for sure aspartame/phenylalanine(sp?) Are derived from fecal matter of bacteria such as E.coli, which is a neurotoxin

Um there's a difference though.

If you were to eat 800 calories worth of meat, you'd probably feel full and not want to eat anymore. If you were to drink 800 calories of soda, you probably won't be feeling full and you'd eat food which increases the amount of calories you intake.

You can't survive purely on soda and nor can soda be a meal.

I was thinking hes saying just from drinking the soda made him gain the weight. you know,from TEH SUGARZ

i drink alot of soda. I drink diet soda becasue if I switch to regular soda I gain 5lbs a week. Tried it 3X and same result each time.

You sure it's not fluid retention?

http://www.livestrong.com/article/469828-does-drinking-soda-cause-water-retention/

Judge Blocks Ban on Mega Sodas :p

A judge threw out New York City?s ban on supersized sugary drinks today, prompting an angry Mayor Michael Bloomberg to say the judge was ?totally in error? and that ?we?re talking about lives versus profits.?

Judge Milton Tingling called the soda ban ?arbitrary and capricious? in a 36 page order.

Passed in September and scheduled to take effect Tuesday, the law ?would not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it. Such an evisceration has the potential to be more troubling than sugar sweetened beverages,? he said.

Bloomberg said the city would appeal the ruling.

http://abcnews.go.co...sized-soda-ban/

Judge Blocks Ban on Mega Sodas :p

A judge threw out New York City?s ban on supersized sugary drinks today, prompting an angry Mayor Michael Bloomberg to say the judge was ?totally in error? and that ?we?re talking about lives versus profits.?

Judge Milton Tingling called the soda ban ?arbitrary and capricious? in a 36 page order.

Passed in September and scheduled to take effect Tuesday, the law ?would not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it. Such an evisceration has the potential to be more troubling than sugar sweetened beverages,? he said.

Bloomberg said the city would appeal the ruling.

http://abcnews.go.co...sized-soda-ban/

Lets celebrate. Big GULPS on me.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!