6 ms·

Stories of chain restaurant origins are really interesting, except I find them hard to read because I'm so grossed out by the amount of obesity, diabetes, and h

by tlb 9y ago

Stories of chain restaurant origins are really interesting, except I find them hard to read because I'm so grossed out by the amount of obesity, diabetes, and heart-disease they've caused. Cinnabon is surely only a little behind Philip Morris in collateral damage caused.

assface 9y ago
> Cinnabon is surely only a little behind Philip Morris in collateral damage caused. I disagree. I had a bad bowel obstruction once after minor surgery. I was backed up for over a week. My doctor told me to head straight to the local mall and get a Cinnabon. It flushed me out like it was opening the gates of the Erie Canal. It was a miracle. The doctor later told me that he is 14 for 16 for getting people to start pooping again through Cinnabon.
- Scaevolus 9y ago
  Cinnamon is a laxative, and has been used in herbal medicine for a long time. In this case, it's the 15 teaspoons of sugar that helps the medicine go down!
- solotronics 9y ago
  you smell obstructed bowels? I smell the opportunity for a cinnabon FDA approved as a laxative
- girvo 9y ago
  I have gastroesophogeal reflux disorder, and used to regularly get food randomly “come up” and get stuck in my throat making it hard to breathe. My doctor quite literally “prescribed” a can of Pepsi: the carbonation and acidity did the trick! Now I keep a bottle of soda water in the fridge for all meals :)
Aloha 9y ago
In the case of cinnabon, I'd profoundly disagree with you: "The company anticipated mega sales when it opened bakeries in a handful of Seattle-area QFCs in 1996. Instead, remembers Greg, “We’d get a three-month boost, and sales would just die.” In marketing speak, Cinnabon suffers from high levels of “product fatigue.” In real talk, it’s not the type of thing most people can eat on a regular basis and maintain their self-respect—or their pant size. Grocery store regulars eventually learn to resist the siren song of icing, dough, and cinnamon goo." In any case, you choose to smoke, you choose to eat too much, you choose to do things - while yes, you can get addicted to nicotine (and likely will), and you might get addicted to junk food - you made the choice in the first place - its not as if the risks are unknowns. While I'm in favor of a gradual delegalization of tobacco, banning food is beyond the pale for me - moderated consumption of even calorie bombs like cinnabon, has not been proven harmful - what alternative do you have?
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Sugar triggers the same parts of your brain as cocaine, while also causing severe health problems when overconsumed. Please don’t say “you made the choice” when talking about substance abuse, regardless of the substance. While I’d advocate outlawing tobacco, I think products based on sugar should carry a hefty tax to fund healthcare costs and dissuade their consumption. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-rea...
  - yters 9y ago
    Should we legislate against exercise too, which can cause death when done to extremes? We should also outlaw extreme dieting, due to similar health effects. We also might want to enforce a bit of overeating since somewhat overweight people live longer.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      I didn't say legislate; my workplace health insurance plan charges me less if they detect I'm using the gym plan they pay for and my blood tests show I'm not smoking. I have the option of paying more per month if I don't want to participate in these wellness activities. Internalize the economic externalities. You can lead an unhealthy life if you want, but you should pay for it.
      - noarchy 9y ago
        >I didn't say legislate; Are you sure? You also said: >While I’d advocate outlawing tobacco, I think products based on sugar should carry a hefty tax to fund healthcare costs and dissuade their consumption. Were you talking about costs related to private insurance, or government-imposed taxes?
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
        > Were you talking about costs related to private insurance, or government-imposed taxes? To be clear, I'm for both, as I believe that government should provide a single payer system and activities that make you unhealthy and have an excessive cost to treat should be taxed to fund those treatments.
jbuzbee 9y ago
All things in moderation...
- 55555 9y ago
  Yeah but he has a point. I can't keep cookies in my own house unless they are in a cupboard ("out of sight, out of mind") or I'll eat them late at night when I seem to have no self-control left. Meanwhile some Cinnabon locations heat up sheets of just cinnamon and brown sugar under purposely under-powered fume hoods.
dogruck 9y ago
Ah yes. Regulate the guns, not the shooter. The food, not the eater. The soda, not the drinker. The couch, not the potato. The Home Depot truck, not the maniac. Let’s regulate our way to utopia.
- taeric 9y ago
  Or, you know, be deliberate in what you do. There is plenty of evidence showing that a "slippery slope" argument is borderline bullshit. Typically used by folks that are just trying to kill the conversation. Meanwhile, there is the similar perverse truth that bad regulations got us into some of our current situation. In particular, the sugar and gun lobbies were remarkably effective at promoting their topics. So, by all means, if you are just trying to rhetorically shut down conversation; keep at it. Just please don't be surprised to find nobody wants to talk back at you someday.
  - dogruck 9y ago
    I’m not making a “slippery slope” argument. On the other hand, I concede that my tone could give the wrong impression. To clarify — I think people should be free to buy or sell any food product. I don’t think we should punish a seller because buyers happen to overbuy the product. I think the goverment’s role should be limited to punishing bad actors. For example, a seller who deceives or cheats buyers.
    - taeric 9y ago
      Fair, apologies if I came off as too harsh. What you said just felt like the slippery slope argument. For me, I see it less about limiting peoples freedoms, and more about moving delayed costs up front. People are still free to buy/sell most any food product. However, some appear to have a marked impact on society, but in a delayed fashion. That is, you won't get sick from drinking 32 ounce sodas the day you drink them. However, you are likely to get addicted to them and they will make you unhealthy eventually. Increasing the costs moves some of that pain early, so that it is easier to make the choice to avoid. Do I think this is perfect? No. Not even close. Nor do I think people should be disallowed from buying stuff like this. I do think more of the proceeds should go to making people healthy or at least educated. Going into the producers of these products doesn't help the health, and the way marketing works, they become less educated on the risks of these products. There is a reason we had to regulate the hell out of cigarettes, for example. And I don't shed any tears over that.

by tlb 9y ago

assface 9y ago

> Cinnabon is surely only a little behind Philip Morris in collateral damage caused. I disagree. I had a bad bowel obstruction once after minor surgery. I was backed up for over a week. My doctor told me to head straight to the local mall and get a Cinnabon. It flushed me out like it was opening the gates of the Erie Canal. It was a miracle. The doctor later told me that he is 14 for 16 for getting people to start pooping again through Cinnabon.

Scaevolus 9y ago
Cinnamon is a laxative, and has been used in herbal medicine for a long time. In this case, it's the 15 teaspoons of sugar that helps the medicine go down!
solotronics 9y ago
you smell obstructed bowels? I smell the opportunity for a cinnabon FDA approved as a laxative
girvo 9y ago
I have gastroesophogeal reflux disorder, and used to regularly get food randomly “come up” and get stuck in my throat making it hard to breathe. My doctor quite literally “prescribed” a can of Pepsi: the carbonation and acidity did the trick! Now I keep a bottle of soda water in the fridge for all meals :)

Aloha 9y ago

In the case of cinnabon, I'd profoundly disagree with you: "The company anticipated mega sales when it opened bakeries in a handful of Seattle-area QFCs in 1996. Instead, remembers Greg, “We’d get a three-month boost, and sales would just die.” In marketing speak, Cinnabon suffers from high levels of “product fatigue.” In real talk, it’s not the type of thing most people can eat on a regular basis and maintain their self-respect—or their pant size. Grocery store regulars eventually learn to resist the siren song of icing, dough, and cinnamon goo." In any case, you choose to smoke, you choose to eat too much, you choose to do things - while yes, you can get addicted to nicotine (and likely will), and you might get addicted to junk food - you made the choice in the first place - its not as if the risks are unknowns. While I'm in favor of a gradual delegalization of tobacco, banning food is beyond the pale for me - moderated consumption of even calorie bombs like cinnabon, has not been proven harmful - what alternative do you have?

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Sugar triggers the same parts of your brain as cocaine, while also causing severe health problems when overconsumed. Please don’t say “you made the choice” when talking about substance abuse, regardless of the substance. While I’d advocate outlawing tobacco, I think products based on sugar should carry a hefty tax to fund healthcare costs and dissuade their consumption. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-rea...
- yters 9y ago
  Should we legislate against exercise too, which can cause death when done to extremes? We should also outlaw extreme dieting, due to similar health effects. We also might want to enforce a bit of overeating since somewhat overweight people live longer.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    I didn't say legislate; my workplace health insurance plan charges me less if they detect I'm using the gym plan they pay for and my blood tests show I'm not smoking. I have the option of paying more per month if I don't want to participate in these wellness activities. Internalize the economic externalities. You can lead an unhealthy life if you want, but you should pay for it.
    - noarchy 9y ago
      >I didn't say legislate; Are you sure? You also said: >While I’d advocate outlawing tobacco, I think products based on sugar should carry a hefty tax to fund healthcare costs and dissuade their consumption. Were you talking about costs related to private insurance, or government-imposed taxes?
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        > Were you talking about costs related to private insurance, or government-imposed taxes? To be clear, I'm for both, as I believe that government should provide a single payer system and activities that make you unhealthy and have an excessive cost to treat should be taxed to fund those treatments.

jbuzbee 9y ago

All things in moderation...

55555 9y ago
Yeah but he has a point. I can't keep cookies in my own house unless they are in a cupboard ("out of sight, out of mind") or I'll eat them late at night when I seem to have no self-control left. Meanwhile some Cinnabon locations heat up sheets of just cinnamon and brown sugar under purposely under-powered fume hoods.

dogruck 9y ago

Ah yes. Regulate the guns, not the shooter. The food, not the eater. The soda, not the drinker. The couch, not the potato. The Home Depot truck, not the maniac. Let’s regulate our way to utopia.

taeric 9y ago
Or, you know, be deliberate in what you do. There is plenty of evidence showing that a "slippery slope" argument is borderline bullshit. Typically used by folks that are just trying to kill the conversation. Meanwhile, there is the similar perverse truth that bad regulations got us into some of our current situation. In particular, the sugar and gun lobbies were remarkably effective at promoting their topics. So, by all means, if you are just trying to rhetorically shut down conversation; keep at it. Just please don't be surprised to find nobody wants to talk back at you someday.
- dogruck 9y ago
  I’m not making a “slippery slope” argument. On the other hand, I concede that my tone could give the wrong impression. To clarify — I think people should be free to buy or sell any food product. I don’t think we should punish a seller because buyers happen to overbuy the product. I think the goverment’s role should be limited to punishing bad actors. For example, a seller who deceives or cheats buyers.
  - taeric 9y ago
    Fair, apologies if I came off as too harsh. What you said just felt like the slippery slope argument. For me, I see it less about limiting peoples freedoms, and more about moving delayed costs up front. People are still free to buy/sell most any food product. However, some appear to have a marked impact on society, but in a delayed fashion. That is, you won't get sick from drinking 32 ounce sodas the day you drink them. However, you are likely to get addicted to them and they will make you unhealthy eventually. Increasing the costs moves some of that pain early, so that it is easier to make the choice to avoid. Do I think this is perfect? No. Not even close. Nor do I think people should be disallowed from buying stuff like this. I do think more of the proceeds should go to making people healthy or at least educated. Going into the producers of these products doesn't help the health, and the way marketing works, they become less educated on the risks of these products. There is a reason we had to regulate the hell out of cigarettes, for example. And I don't shed any tears over that.