1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Should there be a "fat tax"?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Chris Blount, May 18, 2012.

Should there be a "fat tax"?

  1. Yes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No

    22 vote(s)
    19.1%
  3. Not Sure

    93 vote(s)
    80.9%
  1. Jun 1, 2012 #81 of 203
    TBoneit

    TBoneit Hall Of Fame

    2,294
    7
    Jul 27, 2006
    The first time the McDonalds French fries took a taste hit was back many years, see this page.

    http://www.rense.com/general7/whyy.htm
    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-511109.html
     
  2. Jun 1, 2012 #82 of 203
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,504
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    So true. Back when I used to own a QSR restaurant, I used one of the best oils available and since I had the luxury of having a triple fryer, I was able to cycle it down every day. It cooked fries one day, then chicken/hash browns the next and the last day it cooked fish with filterings in between.
     
  3. Jun 1, 2012 #83 of 203
    xov

    xov New Member

    10
    1
    Dec 9, 2011
    You're completely wrong. I'd like to see your sources for the above claims.

    Meanwhile, check out these explanations:

    Glycolysis is the metabolic pathway that converts glucose C6H12O6, into pyruvate, CH3COCOO- + H+.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycolysis

    Pyruvate decarboxylation is the biochemical reaction that uses pyruvate to form acetyl-CoA.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyruvate_decarboxylation

    Lipogenesis is the process by which acetyl-CoA is converted to fats.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipogenesis

    Each of the above processes requires multiple steps, but conversion of excess sugar into fat happens quite regularly.

    Also, the body does indeed store sugar in the form of glycogen, which is essentially a long chain of glucose molecules.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogen
     
  4. Jun 1, 2012 #84 of 203
    jdskycaster

    jdskycaster Legend

    278
    7
    Sep 1, 2008
    No program will ever be perfect. Incredibly fit athletes that fall outside of the BMI guidelines may be a bit miffed but they can still get the discount. They just volunteer for the health improvement program, outline their normal routine (that they are already following to keep themselves in tip top shape) and they are good to go. It is an additional step but they are still covered. In the meantime the 99% of the rest of us that are either not incredibly fit or are actually morbidly obese have to live within the limits of the program as well.

    I think the program does as well as could be expected and it must have some effect on the premiums we pay because my coverage is much less expensive each month than my wife who also works for a Fortune 50 company without this type of program. It is why I insure our children and she just insures herself.
     
  5. Jun 1, 2012 #85 of 203
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,602
    372
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    That's good that they allow workarounds - I thought they were screwing over fit people who are inaccurately identified in the BMI scale.
     
  6. Jun 1, 2012 #86 of 203
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,365
    580
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Then what? Fuel for cars that smell like, uh, old cooked food? :rolleyes:

    Interesting on deep frying hash browns- is that a Southern thing? I always sautée/fry hash browns in a big skillet.
     
  7. Jun 1, 2012 #87 of 203
    koji68

    koji68 Icon

    627
    0
    Jun 21, 2004
    No. Foods like nuts, seeds, olives, and avocados, are all full of fat. And they are good for you!

    Recent studies have dispelled the notion that saturated fat is bad for you.

    http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400919/Rethinking-Saturated-Fat.html
    Simplifying the problem to one item is not going to fix the problem.

    Fat is not the problem. Fat is food.

    Overeating, under exercising and processed, un-natural, pesudo-foods are the problems. Nutrition "experts" like this is what got us margarine and trans-fats to replace natural, healthy saturated fat.
     
  8. Jun 1, 2012 #88 of 203
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    My "claims" are based on actual science and that your body doesn't convert one thing into another thing... Your body either breaks things down OR combines things. There is no alchemy at work!

    Meanwhile, your "proof" is from Wikipedia... which is notorious for containing information that most people *think* is correct whether or not it is in fact correct... which is one of the worse things to happen (in my opinion) on the internet since it encourages misinformation.

    Besides information I myself have read from the fortunate few who actually do understand how things work... I've actually practiced it practically in the form of actual daily diet... so I have the best proof possible, personal experience, to go along with common sense (which proves to be less than common these days).
     
  9. Jun 1, 2012 #89 of 203
    xov

    xov New Member

    10
    1
    Dec 9, 2011
    ** Red Flags **

    1. You did not cite a single source for your claims.
    2. You challenge my evidence, not by presenting counterfactual evidence, but by attacking the repository of the information (Wikipedia). (By the way, those articles I cited provide detailed references as sources for the information, most of them textbooks and PhD-level research papers.)
    3. You claim that only a "fortunate few" are in possession of the truth. This presumably does not include the thousands of PhD's, research scientists, biologists, registered dietitians and other nutrition experts who must have no clue about how the human body works.
    4. You set up and tear down a strawman. Indeed, there is no "alchemy" at work. The conversion process I cited involves breaking down sugar and combining the parts, along with other things, into fat. The bottom line is that consuming excess sugar results in more fat, even if you eat no fat.
    5. You appeal to anecdotal evidence, i.e., your own personal experience, which you claim is "the best proof possible". This is actually proof that you do not understand what "actual science" really is.

    Can someone step up and help Stewart out here? I'd like to see the evidence he's talking about.
     
  10. Jun 1, 2012 #90 of 203
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,139
    28
    Sep 16, 2006
    Going to prove that even a simple question will eventually turn into a fight on DBStalk :)
     
  11. Jun 1, 2012 #91 of 203
    spartanstew

    spartanstew Dry as a bone

    12,566
    61
    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    It appears that 77% of the members here are fat.
     
  12. Jun 1, 2012 #92 of 203
    klang

    klang Hall Of Fame

    1,268
    2
    Oct 14, 2003
    Near...
    Nah. At least I'm not. I just don't agree with the government using a tax to try to influence our behavior.
     
  13. Jun 1, 2012 #93 of 203
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,504
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    We had a big ole fat dumpster out by the regular dumpster. Once a month a truck would come by and empty it. At first they did it for free, then they started charging something like $10 a month. It was processed and ended up in animal feeds.

    And in bacon grease but only in an iron skillet. :) These were more like flat tater tots. Think McDonald's hash brown, but in quarter size rounds.
     
  14. Jun 1, 2012 #94 of 203
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    If we are counting red flags... how about posts from a user who joined over 6 months ago with only 7 total posts suddenly posts twice in a thread proclaiming expertise and only cites Wikipedia links that apparently he hasn't read in their entirety.

    Fine...

    Try:

    http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/sept/sugar.htm

    He does mention a process by which technically humans can convert small amounts of sugar into small amounts of fat... but honestly, this is akin to the Noble gases. You know, those elements that will not combine with anything naturally? Except... in laboratories they actually have been able to get it done using energy and pressure.

    So... while technically it isn't scientifically impossible... under normal circumstances and without some crazy overeating, this just doesn't happen for most people in reality.

    Once again... I am amazed at how a random person on the internet has to "post proof" but another random person can post it to Wikipedia and then cite that Wikipedia link and it requires no further proof. Why is your random internet "truth" more valid than mine or anyone else?

    What I said was that a lot of people, maybe most people, don't understand how digestion works. I never said there weren't people who do... Unfortunately, those that don't understand it fail to listen to those who do... hence the conversation we are now having.

    But that's the thing... You are concluding something that even your own cited links do not say. I actually read them, did you?

    The links you cited describe a process by which the body breaks down sugars and then uses that to break other things down and then build fat to store. I never said your body doesn't convert other things into fat... I just said it doesn't convert sugar into fat, at least not directly.

    You might as well be saying that you have a magic machine that converts dinosaurs into toys... because plastic is a petroleum product made from oil that probably came from long-deceased dinosaurs.

    You could just as well say that your body converts sugar into memories... because your body uses energy from sugar to feed your brain. The problem is, that is WAY too simple of an explanation of what is going on.

    I thought I already described it.. but here we go again.

    Your body cannot digest fat and proteins and other things without the use of sugar. IF you eat a tub of lard and don't have any sugar, your body can't do anything but store some of the fat. It needs sugar to help break that fat down.

    Similarly... your body also uses sugar in order to convert proteins and fats for storage for later use.

    Your body isn't so much turning sugar into fat as it is breaking that sugar down and getting energy + other chemicals to use in the rest of the digestive process.

    You wouldn't say that your body converts water to fat would you? Or that your body converts oxygen to fat? And yet... without water and without oxygen none of this happens either...

    I also never said your body doesn't store sugar. Your body will store some sugar for energy use AND for use in digesting stored fat... your body is kind of smart in this way... to store sugar along with fat so that if you are starving it can actually use the sugar to digest the fat and keep you from starving to death.

    Your own quotes are actually quite evidence enough... if you chose to read them and if you are capable of understanding the links you posted. Nothing there contradicts anything I've said.
     
  15. Jun 2, 2012 #95 of 203
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    Actually, the government does that all the time, and it's not necessarily bad. The banning of large drinks goes beyond that. It's the government telling us that it knows better than us how to run our lives. It's the government telling us that we aren't capable of making our own wise choices; instead, we need the government to do it for us.

    To this I say, "Bull!"
     
  16. Jun 2, 2012 #96 of 203
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,365
    580
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    The evidence shows that the average middle to lower class American does not know better than "they" do when it comes to nutrition and health. It's a question both of education and motivation.

    I understand, though, the aversion to the gov't telling us much of anything; I'm on board with that.
     
  17. Jun 2, 2012 #97 of 203
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    It's not up to the government, however, to play teacher/parent/doctor. You, I--each of us--has someone in our lives to do just that. Even if we didn't, we each have ourselves. We don't want or need the government doing this.

    I often wonder how often our Founding Fathers roll around in their graves over the increasing control the federal government has over Americans' lives.
     
  18. Jun 2, 2012 #98 of 203
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,365
    580
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    So, get rid of the FDA, FCC, IRS, CHP, IRT, BMT?.... oops, the last two are subway lines in Manhattan....:lol:

    When peoples' bad habits are costing me thousands in taxes, yes, I am glad something is being done about it. Probably not the right thing yet, but a start.
     
  19. Jun 2, 2012 #99 of 203
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    Yes, get rid of many government agencies and departments. It's NOT the job of the federal government to police the quantity of what we eat.
     
  20. Jun 2, 2012 #100 of 203
    xov

    xov New Member

    10
    1
    Dec 9, 2011
    Really? You're source is a guy trying to sell diet books? Let's see ... extreme vegan, no-fat diet ... yeah I can see why he needs to convince people that carbs won't make you fat. Here's a life lesson: If you want to learn about snake oil, don't ask the guy who's trying to sell it to you.

    Here's an excellent explanation from the National Council on Strength and Fitness. I would encourage everyone to read this and draw your own conclusion.
    http://www.ncsf.org/enew/articles/articles-convertingcarbs.aspx

    Enough said.
    I'm done. You may have the last word
     

Share This Page