^ Please just present your evidence that milk is "better" for you than soda. It should be easy, right?

[Edited on July 11, 2010 at 10:30 PM. Reason : And please stop with the ad hom attacks. Thanks. ]

7/11/2010 10:30:19 PM

Okay, hooksaw, please do read these and start using another more accurate term to dismiss other people's arguments...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

7/11/2010 10:33:18 PM

^ Thanks.

^^

Quote :

"Please just present your evidence that milk is 'better' for you than soda. It should be easy, right?"

7/11/2010 10:35:25 PM

I'll go ahead and chime in here.

In my gym in Europe (where everyone and everything is healthier anyway), they have a free drink fountain. You can get cold water, tea, coffee, and even 5 different types of soda. Pepsi and Sprite are the ones with the labels still attached/that I recognize.

Know what's NOT on the tap? Milk. That's right, in the land of health and fitness (Europe) in the chapel of fitness and healthy body (a gym) they have soda, not milk, readily available for your body's needs.

Soda is healthier than milk.

7/12/2010 8:29:22 AM

I made a request in a thread where there are sure to be personal trainers and others that can explain it better than I can. You should have your answers shortly. Or maybe not. I really don't give a shit.

But here's my response: Coke is nothing but goddamn sugar water, whereas milk is produced naturally and babies live off of it and it alone for a long period of time. Milk also has protein, calcium, Vitamin D, and other shit. Coke has high fructose corn syrup (which is pretty much the worst shit you can ever put in your body) and artificial flavoring which is made god knows how, god knows where.

^ You people are delusional. And of course they wouldn't have milk in a gym to drink while you work out. You'll throw up.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 8:34 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2010 8:29:44 AM

^^

Are you seriously positing that because soda is available at a gym in europe, and milk is not, this is conclusive evidence that soda is healthier than milk?


holy fuck man.

7/12/2010 8:33:38 AM

http://achinook.squarespace.com/journal/2008/9/7/is-soda-pop-or-milk-healthier.html

if you feel like reading it through...

but summary: basically, soda is not healthy per se, but the over processed milk today isn't all it's cracked up to be either with all the chemicals and what not that are put into the cows and then the milk.

Quote :

"And of course they wouldn't have milk in a gym to drink while you work out. You'll throw up."

not necessarily. my dad drinks milk instead of water when he works out hard

(now i'm backing out of this thread.. .don't want to get dragged into this BS)

7/12/2010 8:36:31 AM

Quote :

"my dad drinks milk instead of water when he works out hard"

You mean he doesn't drink Coke when he works out? How odd.

7/12/2010 8:50:50 AM

Are you people seriously taking me seriously?

Jesus christ you're a dense bunch when you get into the Soap Box.

7/12/2010 9:10:32 AM

^ honey, you're not suppose to troll in the soap box. Now come on back to Chit Chat

7/12/2010 11:43:52 AM

Quote :

"which is pretty much the worst shit you can ever put in your body"

Nice hyperbole there.

I don't expect you'd have any different health issues if you took in the equivalent amount of sugar instead of HFCS. I'd wager it's the ubiquitousness of HFCS that's the problem rather than the chemical itself.

At the very least it's not conclusive. Studies abound that "prove" both sides. Not surprising who backs the studies on each side.

7/12/2010 11:53:45 AM

To OopsPowSrprs: Since you never posted any real evidence, is the milk you're referring to organic? If not, it may contain growth hormone, antibiotics, and pesticides. That's not "better" for you, is it?

Is the milk you're referring to skim milk? Because if it's not, the position of the medical community is that it's not "better" for you.

Milk has also been linked in studies to various diseases. Are the people drinking this milk in your scenario free of diseases that might be aggravated by milk and are they aware of the potential long-term risks of drinking milk, particularly whole milk? Is this "better" for you?

Just some things to think about.

7/12/2010 3:29:56 PM

What kind of sick fuck is guzzling milk all damn day like its soda?

7/12/2010 3:48:54 PM

I ain't read this thread in about 3 pages. But I just wanted to say I am glad hooksaw and others are calling out this food police shit.

For whatever reason, I feel like the recent trend toward dictating people's healths to them is the biggest threat to Freedom in this country. Maybe its because I am an ex-smoker that enjoys fast food.

In any case, it boggles my mind how some people can so glibly assert that the government should tell people what to eat and drink. Food safety is one thing. No one wants to eat e coli filled peanut butter. But regulating the amount of calories and fat people put in their bodies? No thanks.

Besides it isn't like we *really* know how to make people thinner without surgery. Conceptually, its simple: (calories spent > calories consumes)= weight loss. But if it was really that easy we wouldn't be having this conversation. Will putting a tax on soda REALLY lead to significant weight loss? I doubt it. The only reason we might think it would is the same reason diets should work (reducing calories consumed), but study after study shows that diets fail more often than not. That's why the most consistently successful weight loss treatment is bariatric surgery. If we wanted to stick to what we KNOW works, then the government should start forcing people under the knife. Sounds like a Utopian dream, right?

Oh well. I better get back to work. I just wanted to say the world has gone mad.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 3:57 PM. Reason : ``]

7/12/2010 3:51:58 PM

Quote :

"Are you people seriously taking me seriously? Jesus christ you're a dense bunch when you get into the Soap Box."

you haven't seen the shit people believe in here. no matter how bizarre a position, there is some jackass on here who believes it.

7/12/2010 4:00:47 PM

^ LOL! On this we agree!

7/12/2010 4:13:34 PM

I'd like to support the position that the goverment partially creates the problems with its acts in the first place. Corn is cheap as hell to grow due to goverment regulations. On the same token, a lot of the alternatives are expensive due to tarriffs and regulations. Thus food companies load everything up with corn. Even freaking dog food is loaded with that garbage (which is nutritionally nill for dogs and only represents them selling you a larger bag).

Goverment regulation will always play a part in what we eat regardless of what we do. It all goes down to the extent it is done. Granted I believe they should focus more on passive changes than direct changes to exert this change.

7/12/2010 4:14:26 PM

Quote :

"I don't expect you'd have any different health issues if you took in the equivalent amount of sugar instead of HFCS."

Like sugar is so good for you. HFCS is processed sugar.

Quote :

"is the milk you're referring to organic? If not, it may contain growth hormone, antibiotics, and pesticides. That's not "better" for you, is it?"

I'm talking about whole milk you get at the grocery store with the red cap. Drinking that is better for you than flavored sugar water, i.e. soda. All that hormone/antibiotic shit is hippie nonsense used to sell the expensive organic stuff.

Quote :

"Are the people drinking this milk in your scenario free of diseases that might be aggravated by milk and are they aware of the potential long-term risks of drinking milk, particularly whole milk? Is this "better" for you?"

Hey...you know what disease is aggravated by pummeling large amounts of sugar via soda? Fucking all of them.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 7:43 PM. Reason : typos]

7/12/2010 7:42:07 PM

Seriously, hooksaw, the evidence of milk's superiority to soda is available to you in video format on the third page of this thread (courtesy of JCASHFAN).

Furthermore, I don't believe our government's failure to adequately regulate dairy farms is a good point to make in your argument against government regulation of food.

7/12/2010 7:47:44 PM

^^, that's the point, guy.

You said HFCS was pretty much the worst shit you could ever put in you. It sounded like you were saying that it was worse than sugar. It probably isn't. It also isn't pretty much the worst shit you could ever put in you. The problem is the mass quantities of sugars (sucrose in sugar, glucose+fructose in HFCS) that we get in our diets.

The bottom line is that corn subsidies don't cause fat asses. If corn wasn't super fucking cheap then they'd use sugar to make shit taste good. Or some other sweet and unhealthy chemical. And people would still eat Ho-Hos because they taste fucking good.

7/13/2010 9:10:28 AM

Quote :

"I don't believe our government's failure to adequately regulate dairy farms is a good point to make in your argument against government regulation of food"

7/13/2010 10:47:44 AM

^I'm just saying. Just cause they let the dairy industry run wild, it doesn't mean that they can't do anything about the quality of our food. People are all shit-talking milk like it's a valid point in an argument against government regulation...if anything, y'all are getting me hyped about sending some government dudes out to crack down on the milk makers.

^^The cheapness of corn has driven the price of other sweeteners down as well. If corn wasn't cheap, then sugar wouldn't be cheap, and food companies wouldn't be able to so cheaply sweeten shit that doesn't need to be sweetened. Do you understand?

7/13/2010 11:17:22 AM

And what do you think the result of "companies wouldn't be able to so cheaply sweeten shit that doesn't need to be sweetened" would be?

Oh, shit, we can't super cheaply sweeten these Ho-Hos, guess we'll just make them less sweet and keep the cost to the consumer the same. Yay! America is saved.

or

Let's jack up the price of Ho-Hos to compensate for the extra cost of sugar. The demand for Ho-Hos remains the same. People (and especially the lower income people who eat the most Ho-Hos) will now be paying more for their Ho-Hos.

All soda and sugar taxes are going to do is hurt the people who need the money the most.

7/13/2010 12:28:58 PM

^ well, i have always understood proponents of the tax on soda to mean that they want the price of soda et al to rise as a result of the tax. That way, if demand is relatively elastic, then the amount of soda people drink will decline. But, as you point out, it could be that demand is very inelastic wrt price, which means that people will be paying more without consuming less (maybe they will decide to eat less lettuce so they can drink more Jolt).

This is one reason why I am fairly sure fat-fascists have not fully thought out their position.

7/13/2010 12:50:48 PM

^^,^What?!? You think poor people would continue to eat Twinkies at the same rate even if they cost twice as much?

I think y'all don't understand poverty.

Seriously though, I don't think you're making a serious argument, disco_stu. There's no way that you're actually fretting about poor people being able to buy HoHos...like, you're actually proposing that we help protect the poor's budgets by providing them with subsidized sweets that ultimately kill them. This is all just too perverted.

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 2:56 PM. Reason : sss]

7/13/2010 2:50:31 PM

@hooksaw:

Quote :

"Is the milk you're referring to skim milk? Because if it's not, the position of the medical community is that it's not "better" for you. Milk has also been linked in studies to various diseases. Are the people drinking this milk in your scenario free of diseases that might be aggravated by milk and are they aware of the potential long-term risks of drinking milk, particularly whole milk? Is this "better" for you?"

For someone who spent multiple posts repeating a demand for evidence and proof, you sure did provide a lot of links and evidence for your own assertions.

7/13/2010 4:02:50 PM

What we're proposing is that demand for indulgences like sweets and soda pop are not strongly affected by price. You would have to make it actually cost prohibitive. Like "if I buy snacks, I will not be able to pay the electric bill". And I bet you they still will buy them when they have an extra buck and they're standing in line at the gas station.

What don't we understand about poverty? There is currently cheap, convenient, and tasty food available that is generally unhealthy. Making the tasty and convenient food no longer cheap is going to do what, exactly? Give the working single mother of 3 a magical amount of time to cook lean healthy meals (that are magically less expensive as the same caloric value of cheap tasty food)?

Nope, you'll just be taking more money out of her pocket. Which blows my mind. Why would anyone be in favor of using taxes to socially engineer behavior? People know fast food and sugars are bad for you, they know that it's making them fat. What they don't know is that food marketed as "health food" isn't any better for them. And they don't have time to prepare basmati rice with lentils and boiled chicken cutlets in curry sauce for 4 people.

Should we tax people for having too many children? Should we make gas taxes so prohibitively high that people can't afford to live further than a certain distance from work? WTF is with you communists?

7/13/2010 4:20:29 PM

^^ I've presented more than enough evidence to make my point. And it's incumbent upon those claiming that milk is "better" for you than soda to produce evidence to support this.

My point was clear to all who have a mind to see it: Milk and juice are not as good for you as some claim, and soda, when consumed sensibly, isn't as bad for you as some claim. The bottom line is that I will choose freedom of choice every single time. Some of you are so fond of choice in other contexts; I wonder why this choice is different?

More freedom, not less.

7/13/2010 6:42:01 PM

Quote :

"disco_stu: What we're proposing is that demand for indulgences like sweets and soda pop are not strongly affected by price. You would have to make it actually cost prohibitive. Like "if I buy snacks, I will not be able to pay the electric bill". And I bet you they still will buy them when they have an extra buck and they're standing in line at the gas station. What don't we understand about poverty? There is currently cheap, convenient, and tasty food available that is generally unhealthy. Making the tasty and convenient food no longer cheap is going to do what, exactly? Give the working single mother of 3 a magical amount of time to cook lean healthy meals (that are magically less expensive as the same caloric value of cheap tasty food)? Nope, you'll just be taking more money out of her pocket. Which blows my mind. Why would anyone be in favor of using taxes to socially engineer behavior? People know fast food and sugars are bad for you, they know that it's making them fat. What they don't know is that food marketed as "health food" isn't any better for them. And they don't have time to prepare basmati rice with lentils and boiled chicken cutlets in curry sauce for 4 people. Should we tax people for having too many children? Should we make gas taxes so prohibitively high that people can't afford to live further than a certain distance from work? WTF is with you communists?"

If the price of junk food rises, I believe we will see its consumption go down a little bit, and less affluent mothers will cope just fine--they're a resilient bunch! Now I didn't realize we were talking about putting some prohibitive tax on the food...I thought we were just talking about eliminating corn subsidies that have driven down the price of high-calorie sweetening agents and allowed food companies to add huge quantities of sugar/whatnot to our foods. We're currently subsidizing the same junk food consumption that is killing people...at the very least we could stop doing that. Don't you agree?

^I've now repeatedly directed you to the video that JCASHFAN posted to this thread on the third page. It's an hour and a half long, but it sums up why soda is worse for you than milk.

7/13/2010 9:27:34 PM

plz plz plz remove corn subsidies

7/13/2010 9:30:37 PM

Quote :

"plz plz plz remove corn subsidies"

agreed x 100

7/13/2010 9:35:54 PM

Quote :

"I thought we were just talking about eliminating corn subsidies that have driven down the price of high-calorie sweetening agents and allowed food companies to add huge quantities of sugar/whatnot to our foods. We're currently subsidizing the same junk food consumption that is killing people...at the very least we could stop doing that. Don't you agree?"

That's my point. You're thinking that if we remove corn subsidies the sugar content of food will generally decline. I disagree. The result will be the same amount of sugar and higher costs to the consumer. So now you're killing people and making them more poor.

I prefer to let people buy whatever the fuck they want and eat whatever the fuck they want. If they want cheap sweet food, then let them buy it. Ending corn subsidies won't make the food less sweet, it will make it less cheap. And then we're back to the elasticity of demand with regard to price.

I just don't think that eliminating corn subsidies is going to be the panacea for fat asses that you suspect. Are there other reasons for ending them? Sure. There are also plenty of young mouths dependent on the corn industry that would be affected by ending them. It's not black and white.

7/14/2010 11:19:40 AM

Quote :

"Why would anyone be in favor of using taxes to socially engineer behavior?"

Quote :

"Why would anyone be in favor of using taxes to socially engineer behavior?"

Quote :

"Why would anyone be in favor of using taxes to socially engineer behavior?"

Quote :

"Why would anyone be in favor of using taxes to socially engineer behavior?"

Fuck you god damn liberal moral busybodies...
Why do you hate freedom?

7/14/2010 11:25:05 AM

Bizarre News -- Soda Ban?
September 21, 2010

Quote :

"BOSTON (AP) - Banned in Boston. That's the proposal city officials are considering for soda pop in public buildings. The city has already banned smoking in bars and trans-fats in restaurants. Now, city leaders are calling on a panel of experts to develop a policy, keeping sugary drinks out of city-owned buildings. One member of the panel tells The Boston Globe that 'somebody has to take a stand.' Many people believe soda plays a big role in the nation's obesity epidemic. But a spokesman for a national soft drink organization calls the proposed ban 'overly simplistic.'"

http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=news/bizarre&id=7679365

Well, at least the Mid-Michigan Channel 12 news team realizes that this story falls under the "bizarre" heading.

10/2/2010 1:44:14 AM

What does "ban" entail, in that context? I don't think the article mentions anything specific.

Are public buildings going to stop stocking soda in vending machines? If that's all it is, then that's really their call as the city government, and it sounds like the whole thing is getting pretty exaggerated.

Or are they going to prevent citizens from drinking their own sodas inside public buildings, similar to the smoking bans? If so, that's both bizarre and idiotic... though it sounds terribly unrealistic, and unless Boston city officials are incredibly stupid, it is probably not what is actually being proposed.

10/2/2010 1:56:14 AM

^ I think the headline is clearly a question and the article is pretty clear that "city officials" have called on a "panel of experts" that offered a "proposal" to keep "sugary drinks out of city-owned buildings." It's obvious to me, at least, that they are referring to sugary drinks sold on city-owned property.

10/2/2010 2:13:56 AM

Quote :

"I think the headline is clearly a question"

You're either being intentionally dense or you seriously don't know about common tricks used to insert bias into headlines. If it's the latter, go learn something.


Regardless, yes, it probably is the situation that you just mentioned/the first situation I mentioned in my post. That situation, however, hardly warrants the term "ban". That was my point: Calling it a ban is an exaggeration.

10/2/2010 2:19:13 AM

^ Dude, just STFU. Seriously.

It's a proposal to consider a ban--yes, a ban--on selling certain drinks on city-owned property in Boston. Two seconds on Google will confirm this for you.

Now, do you have anything to offer on the proposed drink ban--other than picking apart the article and directing attention away from the real issue? If not, please GTFO.

10/2/2010 2:27:13 AM