4 ms·

Eating sugar makes your body/mind crave more sugar though… regardless of consumed calories.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
You don't even know that the replacement thing isn't still sugar. People can't spend their soda money on candy? What if they spend it on cigarettes?
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Quote from start if thread said "total sugar sales are down by almost 20 percent, driven largely by falling soda purchases", so at least we know they didn't buy candy with the money.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    We know they didn't buy only candy with the money. Maybe they bought candy and cigarettes.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      That's a cool theory, do you have any data to back it up or is this just an unfounded assertion?
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        This is literally the thing the person who started this thread is asking for: > This isn't the right definition of success. The first minimal requirement for this to be a successful initiative is that the community lost weight overall. Or even gained weight, but more slowly than other communities.
    - jimmygrapes 5y ago
      not for the price of even large amounts of soda for the same consumed time period
    - smorgusofborg 5y ago
      You can't have it both ways, if stopping candy leads to cigarette money then cigarettes are healthy because anyone who smokes has less money for heroin.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        That's not having it both ways. It's the problem with having incomplete data. But if cigarettes are the thing preventing people from buying heroin with the money you deterred them from using to buy soda, that doesn't mean that the soda money is going someplace better than it was before your law, it only implies that "well then we just need a higher tax on cigarettes" wouldn't be a beneficial solution.
C19is20 5y ago
Evidence? I use sugar as an energy source. The more energy I use (or plan to use) the more sugar I need. That's a biological necessity, not a craving.
- thomasfedb 5y ago
  It's not that simple, sadly, if it was my job would be way easier. Yes, your cells (usually) run on glucose but that glucose can be produced from a variety of dietary sources including sugar (sucrose, fructose, etc), other carbohydrates, and fats. Reduced dietary sugar (particularly the added sugars) is an amazing public health outcome.
- ProfessorLayton 5y ago
  They're talking about refined sugar, which your body does not "need", other carbohydrates can be turned into sugar by your body just fine.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  That argument relies on the assumption that we only eat/consume if we need energy. Thank you you have just solved obesity, because nobody eats more than the energy they need!

You don't even know that the replacement thing isn't still sugar. People can't spend their soda money on candy? What if they spend it on cigarettes?

tsimionescu 5y ago
Quote from start if thread said "total sugar sales are down by almost 20 percent, driven largely by falling soda purchases", so at least we know they didn't buy candy with the money.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  We know they didn't buy only candy with the money. Maybe they bought candy and cigarettes.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    That's a cool theory, do you have any data to back it up or is this just an unfounded assertion?
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      This is literally the thing the person who started this thread is asking for: > This isn't the right definition of success. The first minimal requirement for this to be a successful initiative is that the community lost weight overall. Or even gained weight, but more slowly than other communities.
  - jimmygrapes 5y ago
    not for the price of even large amounts of soda for the same consumed time period
  - smorgusofborg 5y ago
    You can't have it both ways, if stopping candy leads to cigarette money then cigarettes are healthy because anyone who smokes has less money for heroin.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      That's not having it both ways. It's the problem with having incomplete data. But if cigarettes are the thing preventing people from buying heroin with the money you deterred them from using to buy soda, that doesn't mean that the soda money is going someplace better than it was before your law, it only implies that "well then we just need a higher tax on cigarettes" wouldn't be a beneficial solution.

C19is20 5y ago

Evidence? I use sugar as an energy source. The more energy I use (or plan to use) the more sugar I need. That's a biological necessity, not a craving.

thomasfedb 5y ago
It's not that simple, sadly, if it was my job would be way easier. Yes, your cells (usually) run on glucose but that glucose can be produced from a variety of dietary sources including sugar (sucrose, fructose, etc), other carbohydrates, and fats. Reduced dietary sugar (particularly the added sugars) is an amazing public health outcome.
ProfessorLayton 5y ago
They're talking about refined sugar, which your body does not "need", other carbohydrates can be turned into sugar by your body just fine.
cycomanic 5y ago
That argument relies on the assumption that we only eat/consume if we need energy. Thank you you have just solved obesity, because nobody eats more than the energy they need!