4 ms·

> Actually, quite the opposite. People who don't consume foods with lots of added sugar are already healthier and wouldn't end up paying a lot more for their fo

> Actually, quite the opposite. People who don't consume foods with lots of added sugar are already healthier and wouldn't end up paying a lot more for their food. Not "the opposite". Exactly as I said: a lot of people would end up paying more, for no health benefit. > Increasing physical activity and micro-nutrients are great goals, but do not play a large part in the obesity epidemic. That is merely your own opinion, but you seem to think that this is a fact. If you are so sure, I'm sure you have some good sources for that? I mean, the first study you linked actually doesn't speak in your favor. > Sure, it does. As you yourself stated "added sugar has zero good micro-nutrients", by definition these are excess calories that you don't need. Wait what? That's not how "excess" is commonly defined. Here's how this term is usually used: > When you eat more calories than you need, your body stores the extra calories as body fat. Even a fat-free food can have a lot of calories. Excess calories in any form can be stored as body fat. (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/4182-fat-and-calories https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/4182-fat-and-...) or > “Excess calories per day” is simply an arbitrary measure over an arbitrary unit of time to better calculate and plan your diet and calorie deficit/surplus (depending on your goals). (https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/07/27/how-long-does-it-take-for-excess-calories-to-become-fat/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/07/27/how-long-does-...) So this term is used simply for surplus calories. Sure, sugars can be surplus calories, but if I eat 2500kcal of protein in a day and my body only burns 2000kcal, then 500 of these are excess calories. But I could have left out 500 of any of these 2500kcal to avoid excess calories. So my point still stands.

ahnick 5y ago
> Not "the opposite". Exactly as I said: a lot of people would end up paying more, for no health benefit. No, what happens is this money eventually flows back in terms of lower healthcare costs overall. > That is merely your own opinion, but you seem to think that this is a fact. If you are so sure, I'm sure you have some good sources for that? I mean, the first study you linked actually doesn't speak in your favor. It actually did. Unfortunately, you can only lead a horse to water. > So this term is used simply for surplus calories. Sure, sugars can be surplus calories, but if I eat 2500kcal of protein in a day and my body only burns 2000kcal, then 500 of these are excess calories. But I could have left out 500 of any of these 2500kcal to avoid excess calories. So my point still stands. I'm glad we agree sugar can be considered surplus calories. The point is when we are trying to reduce people's overall number of calories from their diet we could eliminate any calories, but we should try and eliminate the ones that don't provide any benefit and in fact have negative consequences first.
- valenterry 5y ago
  > No, what happens is this money eventually flows back in terms of lower healthcare costs overall. Only if that really happens - just because obesity goes down doesn't mean that we experience cost savings. People might just live longer then and get other sicknesses instead, require more pension etc - who knows how it plays out. Can you backup your claim? And even then, there might be better solutions that lower the healthcore costs as much or more, without imposing a partially unfair tax. > It actually did. Unfortunately, you can only lead a horse to water. Lol, I already quoted the relevant parts from your study and you just ignored it. > The point is when we are trying to reduce people's overall number of calories from their diet we could eliminate any calories, but we should try and eliminate the ones that don't provide any benefit and in fact have negative consequences first. As I already said, that is your personal opinion and I believe different. I suspect physical activity, micro-nutritions (where sugar is part of, but really only part) and also gut-bacteria and stress-levels are major factors. Sugar is probably not the easiest thing to realistically fix and introduces a lot of collateral damage if you generally tax sugars. But I know you believe different for some reason and I think a discussion is pointless. I would be interested to see a study (and a quote from there) that really says "sugars are the (main) cause and here is why", but I doubt you can show my something, because it most likely just doesn't exist.

ahnick 5y ago

> Not "the opposite". Exactly as I said: a lot of people would end up paying more, for no health benefit. No, what happens is this money eventually flows back in terms of lower healthcare costs overall. > That is merely your own opinion, but you seem to think that this is a fact. If you are so sure, I'm sure you have some good sources for that? I mean, the first study you linked actually doesn't speak in your favor. It actually did. Unfortunately, you can only lead a horse to water. > So this term is used simply for surplus calories. Sure, sugars can be surplus calories, but if I eat 2500kcal of protein in a day and my body only burns 2000kcal, then 500 of these are excess calories. But I could have left out 500 of any of these 2500kcal to avoid excess calories. So my point still stands. I'm glad we agree sugar can be considered surplus calories. The point is when we are trying to reduce people's overall number of calories from their diet we could eliminate any calories, but we should try and eliminate the ones that don't provide any benefit and in fact have negative consequences first.

valenterry 5y ago
> No, what happens is this money eventually flows back in terms of lower healthcare costs overall. Only if that really happens - just because obesity goes down doesn't mean that we experience cost savings. People might just live longer then and get other sicknesses instead, require more pension etc - who knows how it plays out. Can you backup your claim? And even then, there might be better solutions that lower the healthcore costs as much or more, without imposing a partially unfair tax. > It actually did. Unfortunately, you can only lead a horse to water. Lol, I already quoted the relevant parts from your study and you just ignored it. > The point is when we are trying to reduce people's overall number of calories from their diet we could eliminate any calories, but we should try and eliminate the ones that don't provide any benefit and in fact have negative consequences first. As I already said, that is your personal opinion and I believe different. I suspect physical activity, micro-nutritions (where sugar is part of, but really only part) and also gut-bacteria and stress-levels are major factors. Sugar is probably not the easiest thing to realistically fix and introduces a lot of collateral damage if you generally tax sugars. But I know you believe different for some reason and I think a discussion is pointless. I would be interested to see a study (and a quote from there) that really says "sugars are the (main) cause and here is why", but I doubt you can show my something, because it most likely just doesn't exist.