5 ms·

> I feel like a better angle would be educating people that 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks sugar for breakfast is not healthy. An even better angle is educating

> I feel like a better angle would be educating people that 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks sugar for breakfast is not healthy. An even better angle is educating Starbucks to stop selling unhealthy garbage. The idea that all blame rests on individuals and corporations are blame-free is crazy. They have way more agency over what we consume than individuals do.

kccqzy 8mo ago
That Starbucks probably saved my life after I made an unwise decision to bike 40 miles on an empty stomach. Bonking is real, and I’m glad they are allowed to sell the sugary beverages to prevent me from bonking. Oh and I also fainted the first time I donated blood, because I did not know I should not donate blood while fasting. Again, sugary drinks helped.
- shimman 8mo ago
  You really can't discern between a healthy portion of sugar and an unhealthy portion of sugar? I can assure you it should be way less than what they are serving. Especially since society will bare these costs in a variety of unexpected ways, Starbucks needs to be compelled into doing so. They broke the societal compact, they have to be punished.
  - kccqzy 8mo ago
    I can discern it very well. And indeed I think for the people like me who can discern it, stores should be able to sell these sugary beverages. The same amount of sugar is unhealthy when I’m sedentary, but absolutely necessary in other cases.
    - shimman 8mo ago
      That's fine but people like you are an extreme minority and I'd rather the government regulate the greed from these addiction companies rather than forcing tax payers to foot the bill. Corporate welfare has to end.
    - queenkjuul 8mo ago
      You could just buy two less-sugary ones
- Rendello 8mo ago
  I bonked in the middle of a 100km ride on a rail trail through farmer's fields. I thought I'd had enough food, since the same amount was sufficient for the initial trip out a few days earlier, but it wasn't. It was the return journey of my first big bike trip, and it was absolute hell after I bonked. I'd ride for twenty minutes, then lie on the ground for ten. When I was laying on the ground I'd be searching the vegetation for anything that looked vaguely edible. Crazy how a glucose drop can sneak up and humble you so quickly!
- tikhonj 8mo ago
  There's a lot of area on the spectrum between where we are today and "sugary beverages are all banned". For example, Starbucks could limit the sizes it sells and advertises—you'd still be able to have as much sugar as you would like by buying multiple drinks, but it would raise the activation energy needed to do that. Making the healthier choice the path of least resistance works wonders.
- lxgr 8mo ago
  By that logic, should Starbucks also sell life-saving insulin and epi pens?
oceanplexian 8mo ago
> The idea that all blame rests on individuals and corporations are blame-free is crazy. You know they have Starbucks in other countries without an obesity crisis? No one is forcing you or I to order a particular drink at Starbucks; they literally put the number of calories directly next to the menu item. The blame is 100% on the individuals making their own health decisions.
- WarmWash 8mo ago
  Yeah but progressive ideals are a much harder sell if people have to take responsibility for their actions. "Others should pay for my mobility scooter because others keeps feeding me junk food" and all that. Then again, free will is an illusion, so...
- munificent 8mo ago
  > The blame is 100% on the individuals making their own health decisions. If you put a pile of junk food on the floor, your pet will eat it until they make themselves sick. We are smarter than many animals and have more discipline. But we are still animals and do not have unlimited executive function. The people who architect the environment of incentives that surround us bear some amount of responsibility for the behavior those incentives create. Denying that is denying that we are living beings subject to all of the same limitations as any other mortal animal. We are not spherical rational actors in a vacuum.
  - sleazebreeze 8mo ago
    You can't control the incentives, you can only control your reactions to those incentives.
    - munificent 8mo ago
      We can control the incentives! The idea that we should completely cede the environment and public space to corporations and give them total autonomy over the incentives that surround us is crazy.
burgerzzz 8mo ago
[flagged]
- toomuchtodo 8mo ago
  GLP-1s disprove this to an extent. Personal responsibility is based on a fallacy, it’s just brain chemistry. So give everyone GLP-1s to cast the shadow of personality responsibility (reduction in adverse reward center operations, broadly speaking) through better brain chemistry. Existence is hard, we can twiddle the wetware to make it less hard.
  - whackernews 8mo ago
    Eh? I mean, this sounds potentially interesting but I don’t understand it!
    - toomuchtodo 8mo ago
      “We fixed the glitch.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12742762/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12742762/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938424001677 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003193842... https://time.com/7340807/history-debate-insurance-glp-1s/ https://time.com/7340807/history-debate-insurance-glp-1s/ https://recursiveadaptation.com/p/the-growing-scientific-case-for-using https://recursiveadaptation.com/p/the-growing-scientific-cas... The consistency that I'm hearing from all across patient groups is gain of control, whereas previously, there was a loss of control… All of a sudden they're able to step back and say, 'oh, well I had this shopping phenomenon that was going on, gambling, addiction, or alcoholism, and all of a sudden, it just stopped,' - Dr. Gitanjali Srivastava, Vanderbilt Medical Center
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
  - diath 8mo ago
    The only thing that GLP-1 agonists prove is that CICO does indeed work - if you force yourself into a caloric deficit through the inhibition of hunger hormones using drugs that you will lose weight. It has nothing to do with people choosing to eat highly processed unhealthy foods over healthier options. When you're on Ozempic or peptides like Retatrutide/Tirzepatide you don't think "I will not eat a bag of chips today because it's unhealthy and calorie dense", you simply don't think about eating because your feeling of hunger is inhibited.
c22 8mo ago
This is an extremely hazardous opinion. It is true that corporations spend vast resources attempting to lure consumers into their webs but you do have agency! You can resist! Vote with your wallet and strip these bad actors of the power you handed to them when you gave up.
raincole 8mo ago
You know multinational brands sell sweeter products in the US than in other countries? It's not that all the rest of the world has sugar tax or something. It's customer profile. [0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32576300/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32576300/ [1]: https://www.itiger.com/news/1184332557 https://www.itiger.com/news/1184332557
albedoa 8mo ago
> They have way more agency over what we consume than individuals do. I walk by Starbucks every day without consuming 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks. You think that's due to their agency??

kccqzy 8mo ago

That Starbucks probably saved my life after I made an unwise decision to bike 40 miles on an empty stomach. Bonking is real, and I’m glad they are allowed to sell the sugary beverages to prevent me from bonking. Oh and I also fainted the first time I donated blood, because I did not know I should not donate blood while fasting. Again, sugary drinks helped.

shimman 8mo ago
You really can't discern between a healthy portion of sugar and an unhealthy portion of sugar? I can assure you it should be way less than what they are serving. Especially since society will bare these costs in a variety of unexpected ways, Starbucks needs to be compelled into doing so. They broke the societal compact, they have to be punished.
- kccqzy 8mo ago
  I can discern it very well. And indeed I think for the people like me who can discern it, stores should be able to sell these sugary beverages. The same amount of sugar is unhealthy when I’m sedentary, but absolutely necessary in other cases.
  - shimman 8mo ago
    That's fine but people like you are an extreme minority and I'd rather the government regulate the greed from these addiction companies rather than forcing tax payers to foot the bill. Corporate welfare has to end.
  - queenkjuul 8mo ago
    You could just buy two less-sugary ones
Rendello 8mo ago
I bonked in the middle of a 100km ride on a rail trail through farmer's fields. I thought I'd had enough food, since the same amount was sufficient for the initial trip out a few days earlier, but it wasn't. It was the return journey of my first big bike trip, and it was absolute hell after I bonked. I'd ride for twenty minutes, then lie on the ground for ten. When I was laying on the ground I'd be searching the vegetation for anything that looked vaguely edible. Crazy how a glucose drop can sneak up and humble you so quickly!
tikhonj 8mo ago
There's a lot of area on the spectrum between where we are today and "sugary beverages are all banned". For example, Starbucks could limit the sizes it sells and advertises—you'd still be able to have as much sugar as you would like by buying multiple drinks, but it would raise the activation energy needed to do that. Making the healthier choice the path of least resistance works wonders.
lxgr 8mo ago
By that logic, should Starbucks also sell life-saving insulin and epi pens?

oceanplexian 8mo ago

> The idea that all blame rests on individuals and corporations are blame-free is crazy. You know they have Starbucks in other countries without an obesity crisis? No one is forcing you or I to order a particular drink at Starbucks; they literally put the number of calories directly next to the menu item. The blame is 100% on the individuals making their own health decisions.

WarmWash 8mo ago
Yeah but progressive ideals are a much harder sell if people have to take responsibility for their actions. "Others should pay for my mobility scooter because others keeps feeding me junk food" and all that. Then again, free will is an illusion, so...
munificent 8mo ago
> The blame is 100% on the individuals making their own health decisions. If you put a pile of junk food on the floor, your pet will eat it until they make themselves sick. We are smarter than many animals and have more discipline. But we are still animals and do not have unlimited executive function. The people who architect the environment of incentives that surround us bear some amount of responsibility for the behavior those incentives create. Denying that is denying that we are living beings subject to all of the same limitations as any other mortal animal. We are not spherical rational actors in a vacuum.
- sleazebreeze 8mo ago
  You can't control the incentives, you can only control your reactions to those incentives.
  - munificent 8mo ago
    We can control the incentives! The idea that we should completely cede the environment and public space to corporations and give them total autonomy over the incentives that surround us is crazy.

burgerzzz 8mo ago

[flagged]

toomuchtodo 8mo ago
GLP-1s disprove this to an extent. Personal responsibility is based on a fallacy, it’s just brain chemistry. So give everyone GLP-1s to cast the shadow of personality responsibility (reduction in adverse reward center operations, broadly speaking) through better brain chemistry. Existence is hard, we can twiddle the wetware to make it less hard.
- whackernews 8mo ago
  Eh? I mean, this sounds potentially interesting but I don’t understand it!
  - toomuchtodo 8mo ago
    “We fixed the glitch.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12742762/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12742762/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938424001677 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003193842... https://time.com/7340807/history-debate-insurance-glp-1s/ https://time.com/7340807/history-debate-insurance-glp-1s/ https://recursiveadaptation.com/p/the-growing-scientific-case-for-using https://recursiveadaptation.com/p/the-growing-scientific-cas... The consistency that I'm hearing from all across patient groups is gain of control, whereas previously, there was a loss of control… All of a sudden they're able to step back and say, 'oh, well I had this shopping phenomenon that was going on, gambling, addiction, or alcoholism, and all of a sudden, it just stopped,' - Dr. Gitanjali Srivastava, Vanderbilt Medical Center
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
- diath 8mo ago
  The only thing that GLP-1 agonists prove is that CICO does indeed work - if you force yourself into a caloric deficit through the inhibition of hunger hormones using drugs that you will lose weight. It has nothing to do with people choosing to eat highly processed unhealthy foods over healthier options. When you're on Ozempic or peptides like Retatrutide/Tirzepatide you don't think "I will not eat a bag of chips today because it's unhealthy and calorie dense", you simply don't think about eating because your feeling of hunger is inhibited.

c22 8mo ago

This is an extremely hazardous opinion. It is true that corporations spend vast resources attempting to lure consumers into their webs but you do have agency! You can resist! Vote with your wallet and strip these bad actors of the power you handed to them when you gave up.

raincole 8mo ago

You know multinational brands sell sweeter products in the US than in other countries? It's not that all the rest of the world has sugar tax or something. It's customer profile. [0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32576300/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32576300/ [1]: https://www.itiger.com/news/1184332557 https://www.itiger.com/news/1184332557

albedoa 8mo ago

> They have way more agency over what we consume than individuals do. I walk by Starbucks every day without consuming 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks. You think that's due to their agency??