18% tax on sugary drinks...

[Stumblingdrunk]

Defend yourself. Studies I've seen have shown that, for example, "glycemic index" of type of calories consumed had no effect on weight gain or loss. Or are you referring to something else?

we're clearly reading different information, if i didn't have a final tonight, i would have defended my statement, but thats going to have to wait until later tonight.

[Olo401]

Hmmm.

8 ounces of Coke = 100 calories. 26g of sugar.

8 ounces of Orange Juice = 122 calories. 29.5g of sugar.

What classifies as a "sweet beverage" again?

It should be a tax on fucking corn syrup-based sugars.

[fantasticdan]

While this is true, it just doesn't happen. People simply do not over indulge on fruit juice in the same manner as they do with soda.

I know a lot of people that drink orange juice that way, I know I used to, lol.

[zoobernut]

The glycemic index of a sugar effects how many steps it takes for your body to break it down. The more steps it takes to break a carbohydrate down into the simple sugar you use in your body the more calories your body spends processing it. This changes the net energy gain from different types of carbohydrates. Even though there is more sugar and calories in fruit juice it is more complex and takes more energy for your body to break it down to a usable form.

[MisterBob]

Orange juice might have a decent amount of sugar, but its also infinitely more healthy than soda.

[Tristam]

While this is true, it just doesn't happen. People simply do not over indulge on fruit juice in the same manner as they do with soda.

exactly, which is why I think it's prudent to tax the caffeine-containing drinks over the fruit juice drinks.

[archibaldcrane]

Now, is the Coke Zero, for example in the photo of the OP, also subject to this tax? It has, um, 0 calories and won't make you obese. Like, at all. Ever.

[Azkarin2]

If I buy a gallon of OJ I'll drink it within a day and a half... sometimes a day. I guzzle that stuff. But I don't ever buy soda and the only time I'll drink it is when it is mixed with alcohol. So some people do go nuts of juice, not cola.

[Tristam]

Now, is the Coke Zero, for example in the photo of the OP, also subject to this tax? It has, um, 0 calories and won't make you obese. Like, at all. Ever.

Exactly, which is why I think the whole combating diabetes and obesity thing is a little bit disingenuous. This is really just a tax on soft drinks.

[archibaldcrane]

we're clearly reading different information, if i didn't have a final tonight, i would have defended my statement, but thats going to have to wait until later tonight.

There's info out there on both sides, but I think that the "low glycemic index is the key to weight loss" side is generally supported by the Atkins/South Beach/low or no-carb diet fads.

I'm referring to studies like this: Weight Loss: Glycemic Load Had No Significant Effect

"Participants in our pilot study achieved and maintained comparable weight loss after one year, regardless of whether they were on a low-glycemic-load or a high-glycemic-load diet," says corresponding author Susan Roberts, PhD, director of the USDA HNRCA's Energy Metabolism Laboratory. "The goal was for both groups to restrict calories by 30 percent and, after one year, both groups had lost an average of 8 percent of their original body weight. We found that the two groups did not differ significantly in their average body fat loss, energy intake, metabolic rate, or reports of hunger and satiety."

[TheShadyMan]

I'll take my diabetes over cancer, thank you.

[Jefe]

Fat people ruining it for the rest of us, although I don't drink soda...

[Purrrfect]

Not to say that making less healthy foods more costly is a bad thing, but why make an "obesity tax" apply to non-obese consumers? So sodas may have an influence on obesity, great. But how are you gonna apply an obesity tax on us skinny fucks?

win

[TheShadyMan]

They should at least change the name from 'obesity tax' to something promoting better nutrition. Obesity tax comes across as a bit slanted. Also, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to impose laws on only a section of American citizens.

[Stumblingdrunk]

Participants in our pilot study achieved and maintained comparable weight loss after one year, regardless of whether they were on a low-glycemic-load or a high-glycemic-load diet," says corresponding author Susan Roberts, PhD, director of the USDA HNRCA's Energy Metabolism Laboratory. "The goal was for both groups to restrict calories by 30 percent and, after one year, both groups had lost an average of 8 percent of their original body weight. We found that the two groups did not differ significantly in their average body fat loss, energy intake, metabolic rate, or reports of hunger and satiety.

The results are pretty interesting, but this:

We found that the two groups did not differ significantly in their average body fat loss

I find really surprising. The term "weight loss" itself is meaningless. That the amount of body fat lost seems to be no more or less in either group i find a bit shocking

[Day]

Legalize weed tax the shit out of it.

[archibaldcrane]

Yeah, I think that the "source of calories" discussion is just another way to market dieting fads and isn't particularly important in fat or weight loss. People just don't want to consume fewer calories period and look for gimmicks with quasi-science behind them.

[Deftscythe]

So stupid. You can't force changes in life style with taxes.

[TheShadyMan]

That's not what the Boston Tea Party says.

[Pikarya]

Legalize weed tax the shit out of it.

Gov. would make a killing off of it.