What’s your opinion on Seattle’s sugar tax?

[mect]

That's a big girl. And normalizing that size is just as bad as normalizing an anorexic look. Unless they are 7 ft they shouldn't be 200+ lbs.

No it isn't. A woman that size who is eating healthy and exercising is far healthier than an anorexic woman. There is nothing wrong with an anorexic look so long as that is a woman's natural weight. The point of these types of models is to teach girls and women that health is not linked to their appearance. It is absolutely possible to be 6' and weigh 200 lbs and be healthy. A 6' 200 lb woman eating a balanced, moderate diet and running 10 miles a week will be far healthier than a 6' 140 lb woman that eats junk and sits around all day.

 

[Victorian Gray]

This is being normalized. Big is beautiful and healthy with curves, etc. I agree that’s just as bad as the overly skinny girls.

Damn the 16th century for normalizing this.

 

[dyna]

Everybody in favor of this tax also probably wants to ban Alcohol and Marijuana. If they could ban sugar, I'm sure they would.

 

[pmv]

Everybody in favor of this tax also probably wants to ban Alcohol and Marijuana. If they could ban sugar, I'm sure they would.

Alcohol is already far more restricted and taxed than sugar, and as for the other...

So nah, your point doesn't really make sense. I'm pretty 'meh' about all three (though its only sugar I regret personally over-indulging in - hence have a mouth full of what I'm sure is toxic metal), but I don't have a problem with them experimenting on various levels of restriction/tax for all of those things so as to see what works best (clearly the evidence so far is an outright ban doesn't go well).

 

[dyna]

Alcohol is already far more restricted and taxed than sugar, and as for the other...

So nah, your point doesn't really make sense. I'm pretty 'meh' about all three (though its only sugar I regret personally over-indulging in - hence have a mouth full of what I'm sure is toxic metal), but I don't have a problem with them experimenting on various levels of restriction/tax for all of those things so as to see what works best (clearly the evidence so far is an outright ban doesn't go well).

I know this is thread is about Seattle but it appears they did they same in Philadelphia and according to this article beer is now cheaper than sport drinks.

https://taxfoundation.org/sports-drinks-are-now-more-expensive-beer-thanks-philadelphia-soda-tax/

Bans always start with Taxation. I can't really buy into the idea of taxing the hell out of common food items. People getting fat/diabetes probably has more to do with the internet than sugar.

 

[Zorba]

Big and beautiful is a lie and every man knows it. The penis knows what is sexually attractive (boners don't lie).

Funny, until about the 1940s larger women were seen as more attractive because it was a sign of health and wealth in a world were starving was normal. Look at the women in famous art or Marilyn Monroe, none of them would be typical models today. This is also likely why men are still attracted to larger breasts.

Today men find thin attractive because now it is rarer and a sign of health when food is overly plentiful.

Men also tend to change what they find attractive to the level of attractiveness they could actually get. That is how people are happy without marrying a super model.

In your opinion how exactly are we subsidizing the healthcare costs of the rest of the world? Can you explain?

Is she attractive? Sure
Is she healthy? It's not clear. Her bmi is certainly up but there are a lot of variables in health besides BMI. It's like smoking. Some people smoke and never get disease and some people smoke just a bit and get bad disease. What you can say for sure is that because of her excess fat, she is at higher risk for a lot of health problems and it's not natural for people to have that much fat ( ie just 60 years ago she would have been an extreme outlier in society and certainly even just 100 years ago). Only some of that higher risk can be effectively countered with say exercise that maintains fitness but doesn't necessarily cause the weight to come off. Breast cancer for example is associated with excess fat and that risk won't go away just because she maintains cardiovascular fitness. Another way to look at it is the health results of NFL players who carry excess weight for years and are extremely physically fit (ie can run, sprint, lift weights, etc). NFL lineman have very high rates of early death in their 50s and 60s generally from heart disease actually.

On that note BMI isn't everything when it comes to judging obesity. There is a more recent concept of visceral fat which refers to fat lining organs as opposed fat in the skin and whilst most people who have externally visible fat also have a good amount of visceral fat a lot of skinny people are very unhealthy and have high amounts of harmful visceral fat despite appearing slender.

BMI is just a terrible estimate of body fat percentage, that was never supposed to be applied on an individual basis. However, you can estimate body fat percentage from images and I'd guess she is at the bottom end of the unhealthy zone.

I do think there is a risk to normalizing unhealthy body types. Just look at this thread, people are claiming she eats healthy and works out, so some people are just big. This is false, some people need less calories than others, but if you are carrying around excessive fat it is because you are eating more calories than you are using. Go find pictures of non-wealthy people her size from 1880, I think you'd have a very hard time, because people didn't have access to enough cheap food to get that big.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Wait a second there. She is out my current league..... you know the pathetic middle aged, balding, out of shape cubicle loser league. No way is she out of my previous league.... young fit dashing college womanizer league.... she was in definitely in that league.

Nah, fatties are definitely attainable even for balding out of shape cubicle workers (I know because that's me ).

 

[mect]

BMI is just a terrible estimate of body fat percentage, that was never supposed to be applied on an individual basis. However, you can estimate body fat percentage from images and I'd guess she is at the bottom end of the unhealthy zone.

I do think there is a risk to normalizing unhealthy body types. Just look at this thread, people are claiming she eats healthy and works out, so some people are just big. This is false, some people need less calories than others, but if you are carrying around excessive fat it is because you are eating more calories than you are using. Go find pictures of non-wealthy people her size from 1880, I think you'd have a very hard time, because people didn't have access to enough cheap food to get that big.

Sorry, this is bullshit. The reason I claim she eats healthy and exercises is because this very topic has been reported on, and according to the reports written, she does. She has published examples from her food diary. She has given examples of exercise routines. She has had a health examination made public which showed that she was within normal levels for diabetes and heart disease risk, comparable to another model that participated with her who is a size 2. So yeah, sorry if I trust the evaluation of a physician over your arm chair "picture" evaluations of her health.

You'd have a hard time finding pictures of non-wealthy people her size from 1880 because there are very few fucking pictures from that time, particularly of non-wealthy people, and particularly dressed in a way that you could in any way accurately analyze a woman's size. Additionally, I'd hardly use people experiencing nutritional deficiency as ideals for modeling our health.

And finally, there is scientific evidence that these types of models improve the mental health of women. Florida State just released a study this year that shows women are mentally healthier after viewing average and plus size models.

1. Russell B. Clayton, Jessica L. Ridgway, Joshua Hendrickse. Is plus size equal? The positive impact of average and plus-sized media fashion models on women’s cognitive resource allocation, social comparisons, and body satisfaction. Communication Monographs, 2017; 1 DOI: 10.1080/03637751.2017.1332770

 

[Zorba]

Sorry, this is bullshit. The reason I claim she eats healthy and exercises is because this very topic has been reported on, and according to the reports written, she does. She has published examples from her food diary. She has given examples of exercise routines. She has had a health examination made public which showed that she was within normal levels for diabetes and heart disease risk, comparable to another model that participated with her who is a size 2. So yeah, sorry if I trust the evaluation of a physician over your arm chair "picture" evaluations of her health.

You'd have a hard time finding pictures of non-wealthy people her size from 1880 because there are very few fucking pictures from that time, particularly of non-wealthy people, and particularly dressed in a way that you could in any way accurately analyze a woman's size. Additionally, I'd hardly use people experiencing nutritional deficiency as ideals for modeling our health.

And finally, there is scientific evidence that these types of models improve the mental health of women. Florida State just released a study this year that shows women are mentally healthier after viewing average and plus size models.

1. Russell B. Clayton, Jessica L. Ridgway, Joshua Hendrickse. Is plus size equal? The positive impact of average and plus-sized media fashion models on women’s cognitive resource allocation, social comparisons, and body satisfaction. Communication Monographs, 2017; 1 DOI: 10.1080/03637751.2017.1332770

Notice I was talking about Body Fat Percentage, nothing else. You can have an unhealthy body fat, with no other risk factors, it is very common, especially in young people. You can also be a size 2 and have an unhealthy body fat percentage. Unhealthy body fat is a risk indicator, it doesn't by itself make you unhealthy. Come back here when she is 65 and let me know if she is still as healthy as someone that maintained a healthy body fat their whole life, including impacts to her joints, back, and fitness output.

Luckily we don't have to rely on pictures from 1880, we have data on what size people typically were back then and there were very few obese/near-obese people. That directly contradicts the claim that "Some people just naturally carry unheathly amount of body fat, regardless of their lifestyle."

I am not doubting that having plus size models makes plus size people feel better about themselves, that is the whole fear of normalizing an unhealthy body type. "See there is nothing wrong with having a body fat percentage of 35%, I could be a model!" Not that I believe in fat shaming either, or tying self worth to body image, but people shouldn't start thinking that having high body fat is fine and will have no negative consequences when they are older.

BTW: I think the anorexic look it way worse. Outside of fashion shows, I don't think that look is really all that common any more.

 

[vi edit]

On the topic of the BMI, it's guideline. It's not an absolute. *MOST* people with excessively high BMI's are not fitness fanatics or professional athletes. It's a number that is objective, easy to calculate and goes into a formula with a number of other factors to calculate risks for things like heart disease. Applied to the masses it's simply a tool to help convey their general health.

 

[pmv]

On the topic of the BMI, it's guideline. It's not an absolute. *MOST* people with excessively high BMI's are not fitness fanatics or professional athletes. It's a number that is objective, easy to calculate and goes into a formula with a number of other factors to calculate risks for things like heart disease. Applied to the masses it's simply a tool to help convey their general health.

I thought it was a metric that had justification at a population level but not really at an individual level? For any given individual the BMI guidelines might not represent what their real ideal weight range should be, because it might actually be better for them to be lower or higher, depending on build and other factors (even ignoring professional athletes). But on a population level those variations should cancel out, so if your population's average BMI is going into the overweight range you have a problem.

I personally think it's silly to apply it to individuals, as its obviously going to be affected by build. Even my doctor told me to ignore it, and many sources suggest its better to look at the ratio of waist-measurement to height.

And studies find that morbidity rates are much lower at the upper end of 'healthy' (where I usually am, heh!), and even very slightly into overweight, than they are at the lower end of the 'healthy' range. You are better off being just a tiny bit overweight by BMI than you are being at the lower end of 'correct weight' range - which to me suggests there's something wrong with the whole concept.

 

[vi edit]

Again, it's not meant to be a standalone risk factor. It's part of several that health professionals use to help assess heart failure risk.

 

[Zorba]

Again, it's not meant to be a standalone risk factor. It's part of several that health professionals use to help assess heart failure risk.

It was never meant to be applied to individuals though, and it was proposed as an easy way to estimate body fat percentage for populations. It has been bastardized from its original intent, and had been shown that it is pretty poor on the individual level, and not that great at a population level either.

The health industry jumped on it because it's easy and doesn't require equipment or training.

 

[mect]

Notice I was talking about Body Fat Percentage, nothing else. You can have an unhealthy body fat, with no other risk factors, it is very common, especially in young people. You can also be a size 2 and have an unhealthy body fat percentage. Unhealthy body fat is a risk indicator, it doesn't by itself make you unhealthy. Come back here when she is 65 and let me know if she is still as healthy as someone that maintained a healthy body fat their whole life, including impacts to her joints, back, and fitness output.

Luckily we don't have to rely on pictures from 1880, we have data on what size people typically were back then and there were very few obese/near-obese people. That directly contradicts the claim that "Some people just naturally carry unheathly amount of body fat, regardless of their lifestyle."

I am not doubting that having plus size models makes plus size people feel better about themselves, that is the whole fear of normalizing an unhealthy body type. "See there is nothing wrong with having a body fat percentage of 35%, I could be a model!" Not that I believe in fat shaming either, or tying self worth to body image, but people shouldn't start thinking that having high body fat is fine and will have no negative consequences when they are older.

BTW: I think the anorexic look it way worse. Outside of fashion shows, I don't think that look is really all that common any more.

I wasn't arguing that in general there aren't individuals that carry excess body fat and are unhealthy. I'm simply stating that the message that classifying this particular model as overweight and unhealthy based on a picture is inaccurate, as was demonstrated by her medical examination.

I'm also arguing that being slightly overweight is far healthier than having an eating disorder. The appropriate message is that women should make health decisions based on their actual health and not how they look. And I think you are greatly mistaken on your perspective that the anorexic look isn't common anymore. The message most girls and women currently get is that unless they are a size 2-4, they are overweight. There are currently size 6 women that are considered plus size models. This is not a healthy perspective. I don't buy the argument that a model that is the average size for American's promotes obesity. Yes, American's have an obesity problem. Yes, we should be encouraging people to eat healthier and get more exercise. But it wouldn't surprise me if this woman is healthier than I am, and I'm 6' and weight 165. But unfortunately, my job requires me to spend quite a bit of time sitting in front of a computer. To battle obesity, we shouldn't be telling people they need to look a certain way. We need to tell people they need to be doing certain things.

 

[hal2kilo]

One thing about Washington State, it's economic revenue philosophy in based on multiple regressive suck outs for the poor and middle class. God forbid we would take income or capital gains of a lot of very wealthy Microsoft, Boeing, Adobe, Amazon, ect. millionaires and billionaires. So Seattle, is just going along with the way things get done as far as taxation goes here. I would have thought that they would have looked at how these revenue sources worked out in other cities. It's ridiculously excessive, and like the 95% of taxation in this state really pounds it for poor people.
Not such a liberal state is it.

 

[OutHouse]

When will the carb tax come? A pasta dinner with bread sticks is just as bad as sugar drinks.

 

[UglyCasanova]

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/meg...nt-fat-shamed-heres-shes-wrong-205555681.html

Megyn Kelly says some people want to be fat-shamed. Here's why she's wrong.


Oh lawd

 

[mect]

When will the carb tax come? A pasta dinner with bread sticks is just as bad as sugar drinks.

Ultimately, this is the problem with this type of legislation. There are just so many ways to eat unhealthy, trying to tax it is absurd.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Ultimately, this is the problem with this type of legislation. There are just so many ways to eat unhealthy, trying to tax it is absurd.

Yeah but there are people who have completely replaced water in their diet with soda. I work with people who "hate the taste of water" and whatever they'll finish off 3 or 4 cokes a day. It's an addiction and the sugary beverage industry has an out sized effect.

 

[BigDH01]

Opposed. I'm not in favor of sin taxes. If people continue to behave poorly (smoking, drinking, overweight) charge them more for insurance to account for additional risk (I would prefer the private sector did this). I don't like government p/maternalism because I don't know where it ends. Sedentary lifestyles greatly contribute to heart disease, should we slap a huge tax on video games? Cable? Internet? I'd sacrifice universal health care to keep government from trying to tell me what I can and cannot do by artificially making things unaffordable.

 

[Paladin3]

Government turns everything it touches into shit, but I'm sure they are more competent to dictate my diet than I am.

 

[BigDH01]

Government turns everything it touches into shit, but I'm sure they are more competent to dictate my diet than I am.

This should be required listening.

As an aside, I spend a bit of time helping student loan debtors figure out how to handle their debt. Just another example of how good intentions (increasing access to education) has resulted in negative outcomes. Instead of helping young kids, there's now ~1.4 trillionish of unsecured and basically non-dischargeable student loan debt. The govt has made slaves of a whole generation. Turns everything to shit indeed.

 

[pmv]

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/meg...nt-fat-shamed-heres-shes-wrong-205555681.html

Megyn Kelly says some people want to be fat-shamed. Here's why she's wrong.


Oh lawd

Well, _some_ people want all sorts of odd things...not sure that means they should be administered to all-and-sundry in the public square! Also, maybe the fat-shamers and those who crave the shaming should agree on a safe-word, lest it go too far?

Incidentally, I just take the middle-ground.

I don't think 'fat shaming' is a good thing, both because I don't think it works, and its mean, but also because I wonder what it does to the psyche of the shamers. If you are getting off on mocking or sneering at fat people, what does it say about you and who are you going to turn on next?

But I also don't care for the types who self-rightously try to claim 'the fat' as in themselves a special victim-group (as opposed to fat-hating often being a kind of class, gender, or race hatred in disguise) or to claim that there's no downside to being significantly overweight at all.

It's a public health issue, it has complex social and psychological causes, and the population hasn't put on weight in recent decades because we've all mysteriously become more morally-flawed.

We should start with ending the public policies that actively _encourage_ people to eat bad food or be inactive. Stop subsidising car use and making it hard for people to walk or cycle to places, and stop subsidising the production of bad food. Then maybe think about sin taxes.