The philosophy behind the Fat Tax

[Moonbear]

Can't that be considered animal abuse?

I'm looking into it, and whether this is an isolated incident or a systematic problem. I don't want to derail the thread on that topic though. I'm willing to discuss it with anyone interested via PM.

 

[Moonbear]

Calorie for calorie there is more protein in romaine lettuce than in prime rib.

But not digestible, complete protein. You can get complete protein by combining appropriate foods with a vegan diet, but you also have to keep in mind that you're not going to digest it as efficiently as animal proteins. The human digestive system is very different from that of cattle, so while they can efficiently digest plants to utilize all the proteins in them, we don't do it very well.

 

[loseyourname]

NO, he is not. He is saying meat is more fattening than plants.

I think there's a little more nuance than that to what he is saying. In a thread about fat taxes, in response to increasing obesity and the strain it puts on the American healthcare system, he suggests we should tax meat until it is so expensive that citizens will be forced to eat nothing but plants.

Either he is saying meat is the reason obesity has gone up and the healthcare system is strained, or he is saying it does not matter the reason, and he is simply pulling meat out as one of hundreds of factors that might contribute to any particular individual's obesity because he does not personally like it and is on a crusade for vegetarianism.

I don't particularly like the idea of being charged an obesity tax when I eat one of the healthier diets of any person I know and have always had a BMI at the lower end of the healthy range and a low body fat percentage. I might place some strain on healthcare with the respiratory problems I have but I'm certainly not costing the public any money because of the food I eat.

 

[Hurkyl]

Calorie for calorie there is more protein in romaine lettuce than in prime rib.

Which is not because lettuce has an especially high protein content, but because it has an extremely low calorie content. :tongue:

The way you said it, lettuce sounds like a wonder food for getting your protein... but it takes roughly forty servings¹ of romaine lettuce to get your daily requirements of protein... and that's only if I ignore Moonbear's comments!

But this seems to be a common catch-phrase -- if we suddenly made meat too expensive for the average person to buy, I bet many would fall for it. We would have a vast segment of the population who things they can get all of their protein needs with a couple servings of lettuce. (In addition to all the people who didn't even know that they would have to start making an effort to get all of their essential nutrients)



1: Protien content of roughly 5% taken from http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=61 , and a one cup serving size of lettuce taken from multiple sites from a google search.

 

[Bladibla]

Then there goes the whole purpose of this tax. You create another system of government employees to keep up with peoples smoking habbits? And where is that money probably going to come from? The same tax its made to enforce... thus, no money for health care. As I see it, the meaning of this tax isn't to discourage people from smoking, its to make up for all the expense put on our health care system with the added incentive that it might decrease smoking rates. Of course, as far as the license goes, obviously it will be a recurring license because people will hvae to be taken off the taxing process when they stop smoking so there's no way of keeping the process cheap.

Then of course in the spirit of the thread, where does it end? A license to eat fast food? A license to ski? A licenes to see R-rated movies?

Then make the smokers pay for the license (And it is still compulsary if you want to smoke) that way, smokers will be forced to pay continuously if they want to keep the license to smoke, hence providing the money for healthcare.

As for your examples... I'll just ignore them.

 

[Zantra]

edit: I may have been a tad insensitive:p

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you aren't eating a lot of fat, a tax wouldn't significantly affect you - problem solved.

Buy perhaps Zantra is right. Personal attacks and public humilitation is a much better option. Let's make it even more fashionable to be a jerk. Maybe Jerry Springer could help out.

 

[Zlex]

I must admit, before I clicked on this thread I thought it said flat tax. Now I see its just the opposite. :rofl:

 

[Pengwuino]

Then make the smokers pay for the license (And it is still compulsary if you want to smoke) that way, smokers will be forced to pay continuously if they want to keep the license to smoke, hence providing the money for healthcare.

As for your examples... I'll just ignore them.

Did you intentionally ignore what i wrote or was it an accident?

 

[Pengwuino]

If you aren't eating a lot of fat, a tax wouldn't significantly affect you - problem solved.

Buy perhaps Zantra is right. Personal attacks and public humilitation is a much better option. Let's make it even more fashionable to be a jerk. Maybe Jerry Springer could help out.

We need a jerk tax. You see, the logic follows like this. Jerks are jerks. People tend to punch jerks a lot, forcing them to go to the hospital. Our health care costs go up. Thus, a jerk tax!

 

[Bladibla]

Did you intentionally ignore what i wrote or was it an accident?

Just what did I 'ignore'? Your definition of 'ignore' utterly confounds me. Does 'ignore' mean the same to you as 'relevant'?

Let me quote:

Then there goes the whole purpose of this tax. You create another system of government employees to keep up with peoples smoking habbits? And where is that money probably going to come from? The same tax its made to enforce... thus, no money for health care. As I see it, the meaning of this tax isn't to discourage people from smoking, its to make up for all the expense put on our health care system with the added incentive that it might decrease smoking rates. Of course, as far as the license goes, obviously it will be a recurring license because people will hvae to be taken off the taxing process when they stop smoking so there's no way of keeping the process cheap.

Then of course in the spirit of the thread, where does it end? A license to eat fast food? A license to ski? A licenes to see R-rated movies?

As I see it, the meaning of this tax isn't to discourage people from smoking, its to make up for all the expense put on our health care system with the added incentive that it might decrease smoking rates

What 'purpose' of this tax? What I have suggested is a alternative to the tax! Of course if there is something alternative the past policy will become obsolete!

And paying for the license doesn't shout 'DON'T SMOKE' Ok I'll admit to that, but isn't such an enforcement set to obviously restrict/ ban smoking? If people can't afford it, tough, they can't smoke. I can't see a more powerful way of exploiting smokers, and I say exploiting, because smoking is not in any way beneficial to the smoker himself and the people around. Its a public hazard, and I don't see why any government should give a leash to it by any means.

theres no way of keeping the process cheap

Make the smokers pay more than what we pay the tax moniter people! That way, there will be more enforcement of smoking and hence, reduction in the number of people smoking!

 

[Pengwuino]

So you are basically talking about banning cigarettes because when you clump up a new government system along with making up for health care costs, you might just be talking about a tax that in effect bans cigarettes (at this point you need to start determing how much an catual tax would be, how much woudl cover health costs and how much would the new agency cost which is pretty much anybodys guess).

And BACK to the original purpose of this thread. Where does it end? Banning violent tv, games, etc etc? They do nothing good for people either and only directly contribute to violence as proven by multiple studies so logically, they're gone too?

 

[Skyhunter]

In a thread about fat taxes, in response to increasing obesity and the strain it puts on the American healthcare system, he suggests we should tax meat until it is so expensive that citizens will be forced to eat nothing but plants.

I suggested nothing of the sort. I suggested we remove the subsidies, not add a tax. There is a big difference.

Either he is saying meat is the reason obesity has gone up and the healthcare system is strained, or he is saying it does not matter the reason, and he is simply pulling meat out as one of hundreds of factors that might contribute to any particular individual's obesity because he does not personally like it and is on a crusade for vegetarianism.

There are thousands of studies that all conclude that more plants and less meat is healthier diet for humans.

In the early 1970s Chou EnLai was dying of cancer. In the grips of this terminal disease, Premeir Chou initiated a nationwide survey to collect information about cancer. This was a survey of the death rates from 12 different kinds of cancer in more than 2,400 counties, and 880 million people, the most ambitious biomedical research project ever undertaken. The result was a color coded map of China showing where cancer rates were high and where the were almost nonexistent.

There was a study conducted in China by T. Colin Campbell of Cornell, Dr. Junshi Chen of the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, and Sir Richard Peto of the University of Oxford. Using the cancer atlas they gathered data on 367 variables and then compared each variable with every other variable. They took urine samples, directly measured everything families ate over a 3-day period and analyzed food samples from markets around the country. When they were finished they had over 8,000 statistically significant (95% probability) associations between lifestyle, diet and disease variables.

The study involved 65 counties in 24 different provinces of China. Most of the counties were in rural areas where people lived in the same area all their lives and ate food produced locally. Those living in rural communities and consuming mostly plant protein had fewer chronic diseases that those who lived in communities where more animal protein is available.

In rural China 9 to 10% of total calories comes from protein, yet only 10% of that amount is derived from animal foods. In contrast the American diet features 15 to 16% of calories from protein with 80% of that from animal foods. The rural Chinese were less likely to die from the diseases of affluence (cancer, diabetes, and heart disease) than diseases of poverty (pneumonia, parasitic disease, tuberculosis, diseases associated with pregnancy, and others). Campbell says that diseases of affluence might be more appropriately named "diseases of nutritional extravagance" because they are tied into eating habits.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/6.28.01/China_Study_II.html

I don't particularly like the idea of being charged an obesity tax when I eat one of the healthier diets of any person I know and have always had a BMI at the lower end of the healthy range and a low body fat percentage. I might place some strain on healthcare with the respiratory problems I have but I'm certainly not costing the public any money because of the food I eat.

I am not in favor of taxing fatty foods. I am advocating removing the subsidies, especially for unhealthy foods, such as meat.

 

[Skyhunter]

But not digestible, complete protein. You can get complete protein by combining appropriate foods with a vegan diet, but you also have to keep in mind that you're not going to digest it as efficiently as animal proteins. The human digestive system is very different from that of cattle, so while they can efficiently digest plants to utilize all the proteins in them, we don't do it very well.

That is why the protein content of cooked spinach is so much higher than raw spinach. However, the point is still valid, it is very easy to get all the protein to fulfil ones protein requirements from a plant based diet. With the added benefit of fiber, vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants that are essential for good nutrition.

 

[SOS2008]

The matter of food production that is most germane to the OP is that it is cheaper for restaurants to provide unhealthy food. But not always. One study showed that it would be cheaper to use real blueberries in blueberry muffins, yet the manufacturer was using an artificial substitute (go figure). But it is often just a matter of "economy of scale" and efficiency, and I believe fast food restaurants could and should do better. And it's not just meats and dairy, but as someone said above (Moonbear?) that a scoop of mashed potatoes is equivalent to a scoop of ice cream, so French fried potatoes are the worst.

I'm a proponent of subsidizing farming simply because food is a basic need and therefore a matter of national security. Nonetheless, the cost of food continues to increase (even when the profit margin at most grocery stores is something like 1%?). And just the same we are importing more and more food products from other countries. I agree it would be preferable to help small farmers in the U.S. to stay in business, but I am more concerned about competition from abroad than I am the larger producers within the U.S.

So did people miss the source I provided indicating that obesity has become second only to smoking for cause of death? Being significantly overweight (not just a little pudgy) is linked to many serious and costly illnesses and it is becoming a problem for younger and younger Americans. With this said, yes, it is causing health care costs to soar for all.

Here is another thought. Some jobs, such as law enforcement require officers to keep their weight reasonable or they could lose their job. Is this wrong?

 

[Pengwuino]

SOS, there hasn't been an argument against the idea that obesity is a top killer in this country. I believe that's why no one mentioned your article.

 

[Bladibla]

So you are basically talking about banning cigarettes because when you clump up a new government system along with making up for health care costs, you might just be talking about a tax that in effect bans cigarettes (at this point you need to start determing how much an catual tax would be, how much woudl cover health costs and how much would the new agency cost which is pretty much anybodys guess).

And BACK to the original purpose of this thread. Where does it end? Banning violent tv, games, etc etc? They do nothing good for people either and only directly contribute to violence as proven by multiple studies so logically, they're gone too?

No. When did I ever mention 'banning' of cigs?

And ''it wouldn't cover health costs''? So is that a reason to keep cigarretes legal/ unhibited with only taxes involved? Smoking is a PRIVILAGE and a unjustified one at that. Just because there will be no money for the healthcare is not a good reason to allow a leash for smokers.

They do nothing good for people either and only directly contribute to violence as proven by multiple studies

You have yet to show me how current crime figures has ANYTHING to do with violent TV/games whatever.

 

[rcgldr]

If one eats whole plant foods, protein is not an issue ... Calorie for calorie there is more protein in romaine lettuce than in prime rib.

How about non-fat turkey?

From what I remember, the highest amount of protein from plants is in some types of beans, about 50%. For meat, it starts around 80% protein. Obviously, a lot of forms of beef are high in fat, but a few local grocery stores carry 4% fat hamburger. Then there's fat free turkey breast meat. How does fat free turkey compare in protein / (fat or carbohydrate) compare to the best whole plant food?

 

[rcgldr]

How about a "fat ticket" instead of a "fat tax"? Just like riding a motorcycle without a helment, or a car without a seatbelt? Offenders would be very easy to spot. Make it like a fix it ticket, the offender has to lose 10 pounds in some set time period (2 months?) or pay a fine (or get a medical excuse).

Let's see, like amusement park rides, "you must be thin enough to fit through this gate" in order go inside to this restaurant.

Well if they do implement a fat tax, then only the "fat cats" (rich people) will be able to afford "high fat" foods? McDonalds will become an upper class only fast food place?

 

[SOS2008]

SOS, there hasn't been an argument against the idea that obesity is a top killer in this country. I believe that's why no one mentioned your article.

So if obesity is second to smoking as a health risk, and we know it is causing health care costs to soar, how do you make the system fair, and how do you help to bring those costs down?

BTW, what happens to the tax revenues collected for cigarettes and alcohol, does anyone know? Penalizing does very little--people still smoke and drink, mostly because these are addictive. If the funds were used to educate people (public service ads), and to help people stop substance abuse, then I'd be more in favor of it.

And while it's true that quantity is a factor, most people who are significantly overweight eat unhealthy food. The TV program I mentioned earlier that features families with overweight children (so are the parents) requires them to eat healthy food like fruits and vegetables. Believe me, when you see how they are used to eating, and how hard it is for them to eat healthy foods, it becomes very obvious.

I don't agree with current health insurance policies of refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions that are considered risks, because preventative care is less expensive than emergency care (and the tax payers often pay the bills). But that is the name of the profitability game in the private sector. You'd have to make health care a government service to change this. So perhaps a tax on ice cream, hot dogs, French fries, etc. (obvious offenders that exceed a certain set limit) would be something to consider as long as the revenue went directly to preventative efforts.

 

[Zantra]

If you aren't eating a lot of fat, a tax wouldn't significantly affect you - problem solved.

Buy perhaps Zantra is right. Personal attacks and public humilitation is a much better option. Let's make it even more fashionable to be a jerk. Maybe Jerry Springer could help out.

Fact: Most people who are overweight, are overweight simply because they eat tooo much. Not all, but most

Fact: People who are overweight can counteract this by simply exercising enough to burn off the excess calories. They choose not to.

Fact: A tax on food of any kind WILL affect EVERYONE to some degree.

Let's say you put a 5 percent tax on junk food. So the overweight person who buys $50 worth of junkfood a week pays an extra $2.50. Will every person with a weight problem suddenly eat less? Not likely. It's pretty well proven that people who overeat have an addiction. I'm sure I can go find a few studies if anyone wants to debate that point. But then everyone pays more. Who benefits? Not the overweight people who at best buy a little less junk food. And not the healthcare system or the rest of the population. The only ones to benefit from a fat tax would be the recipients of the tax money: the government.No one puts a gun to your head and says overeat. No one says go to Mcdonalds every day because you're too lazy or too busy to cook. I have nothing against overweight people, but I don't feel that it's a social issue that can be solved by adding an extra 5 cents onto the price of a candy bar.

You know, I smoked over well over a decade (I don't anymore) and I knew it was bad for me. I knew the risks. But that never stopped me. And it also didn't stop everyone from lecturing me. Every day. Over and over and over. And did it sway me? No it did not because I wasn't in the dark and I made a conscious choice. The lectures and insults and berating changed nothing. Until one day I made another choice to quit. And eating is no different than smoking. When it comes to food people have to choose to eat healthy. And they won't change people of some tax. You can't force someone to get thin. They have to want to.

I thought the people who used to preach to me about smoking constantly were complete jerks. Especially the hypocrites who used to smoke and quit only to turn and lecture me. So I guess "jerk" is all a matter of perspective.

 

[Skyhunter]

Ah, so you have succumbed to the organic food scam. http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn122900.htm

Are you by any chance a http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/020122_Stossel.htm disciple?


Are you presuming that I support organic farmers and farming because I am afraid of pesticides?

If so you are grossly trivializing and self orienting the issue. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate diseases linked to pesticides. But that is not my primary concern over the use of pesticides.

Pesticides kill the good and the bad. Their use disrupts the cycle of life that is essential for developing and maintaining healthy, organic topsoil. Food today is not as nutritious as it was 50 or 100 years ago. Pesticides and their harmful effects on the microorganisms and life in general are good enough reasons to limit and when possible eliminate their use. By buying my food from local organic farmers, I support my local community and support an agricultural approach that creates topsoil, not destroy it.

With the vegetables from my backyard and the right combination of spices, my dining experiences are exquisite. Complete with all the protein, fiber, antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and all the other stuff that is in whole plant foods that science has not yet qualified or quantified

I do not recommend getting your information from FOX.

Here is a better link: http://www.growbiointensive.org/biointensive/InContext.html

Ecology Action has dedicated almost a quarter-century to rediscovering the scientific principles that underlie these traditional systems. The people in Biosphere II in Arizona have been using techniques based on those outlined by Ecology Action: they raised 80 percent of their food for two years within a "closed system." Their experience demonstrates that a complete year's diet for one person can be raised on the equivalent of 3,403 square feet!

This is an improvement over traditional Chinese practices, which required 5,000 to 7,200 square feet. In contrast, it takes commercial agriculture 22,000 to 42,000 square feet to grow al the food for one person for one year, while bringing in large inputs from other areas. At the same time, commercial agricultural practices are causing the loss of approximately six pounds of soil for each pound of food produced.

GROW BIOINTENSIVE mini-farming techniques make it possible to grow food using 99 percent less energy in all forms - human and mechanical, 66 percent to 88 percent less water, and 50 percent to 100 percent less fertilizer, compared to commercial agriculture. They also produce two to six times more food and build the soil.

 

[SOS2008]

Fact: Most people who are overweight, are overweight simply because they eat tooo much. Not all, but most.

Do you have a link? I agree they eat more, but they also eat less healthy foods. In the TV program, in one family the boys were living on trays of hot dogs. Sure, they're at the all-you-can-eat buffets. But at the pizza parlor are they getting salad? No, they are going for the pizza and wings. At the Chinese buffet they are piling their plates with breaded, deep fried sweet-sour pork, etc. It's both, as well as exercise as you point out. In the program they replaced the hot dogs with healthy food (portions were not the focus), limited the hours of TV viewing and enrolled the boys in boxing. The boys lost weight in a matter of weeks.

I don't have the link off hand, but in one study the participants were given milk shakes. Some milk shakes were made a little bitter. Normal weight people drank about the same amount of either shake. Overweight people would not drink any of the bitter tasting shake, but would polish off the good tasting shake. So it is about foods that are satisfying. Foods with fats, sugars, etc. are the most satisfying.

 

[Evo]

Do you have a link? I agree they eat more, but they also eat less healthy foods. In the TV program, in one family the boys were living on trays of hot dogs. Sure, they're at the all-you-can-eat buffets. But at the pizza parlor are they getting salad? No, they are going for the pizza and wings. At the Chinese buffet they are piling their plates with breaded, deep fried sweet-sour pork, etc. It's both, as well as exercise as you point out. In the program they replaced the hot dogs with healthy food (portions were not the focus), limited the hours of TV viewing and enrolled the boys in boxing. The boys lost weight in a matter of weeks.

Of course, just the added excersize would make them lose weight.

I know a lot of thin people that eat nothing but high calorie junk food, but they don't eat a lot of it and they excersize.

 

[Pengwuino]

So if obesity is second to smoking as a health risk, and we know it is causing health care costs to soar, how do you make the system fair, and how do you help to bring those costs down?

Good question. We'll probably have to toss the idea of "fair" to be effective. Taxing poor people is a no-no so you can't really tax people directly through the foods they eat.

BTW, what happens to the tax revenues col[ected for cigarettes and alcohol, does anyone know? Penalizing does very little--people still smoke and drink, mostly because these are addictive. If the funds were used to educate people (public service ads), and to help people stop substance abuse, then I'd be more in favor of it.

I'd like to know this as well.

And while it's true that quantity is a factor, most people who are significantly overweight eat unhealthy food. The TV program I mentioned earlier that features families with overweight children (so are the parents) requires them to eat healthy food like fruits and vegetables. Believe me, when you see how they are used to eating, and how hard it is for them to eat healthy foods, it becomes very obvious.

I've seen many studies done showing that its really the quantity people eat and not the quality of food. There have been plenty of people who eat mcdonalds everyday and arent obese but its the fact that they don't do the whole, double quarter pounder with cheese, large fries, 5 apple pies, 2 cookies, and a diet coke thing along with healthy living habbits that allows them to live healthy livestyles.

 

[SOS2008]

I agree that different people metabolize food differently, and some are more physically active so burn more calories. But ultimately, people who eat unhealthy foods are putting their health at risk. In other words, you can look fit but have high cholesterol, hardening arteries, diabetes, etc.

 

[Skyhunter]

I've seen many studies done showing that its really the quantity people eat and not the quality of food.

Could you share these studies with us?

I know it is anecdotal, but I ate fast food, junk food and a 30% - 40% animal fat diet for most of my life, was active and at 40 was considered in excellent health. At age 44 I switched to a vegan diet. I still eat as much as I ever did. (I have been known to eat an entire pot of spaghetti with salad and bread.) On a vegan diet I lost 30lbs, got stronger, healthier (I no longer suffer from the flu or catch colds) and my energy has has dramatically increased. I no longer feel tired all the time. It used to be a struggle to work all day and then do the other tasks necessary to maintain a household.

I would have to argue, from personal experience, that eating right and exercising are both essential for maintaining good health.

 

[Zantra]

Do you have a link? I agree they eat more, but they also eat less healthy foods. In the TV program, in one family the boys were living on trays of hot dogs. Sure, they're at the all-you-can-eat buffets. But at the pizza parlor are they getting salad? No, they are going for the pizza and wings. At the Chinese buffet they are piling their plates with breaded, deep fried sweet-sour pork, etc. It's both, as well as exercise as you point out. In the program they replaced the hot dogs with healthy food (portions were not the focus), limited the hours of TV viewing and enrolled the boys in boxing. The boys lost weight in a matter of weeks.

I don't have the link off hand, but in one study the participants were given milk shakes. Some milk shakes were made a little bitter. Normal weight people drank about the same amount of either shake. Overweight people would not drink any of the bitter tasting shake, but would polish off the good tasting shake. So it is about foods that are satisfying. Foods with fats, sugars, etc. are the most satisfying.

I'll amend my statement a bit, but that's why I said most not all. I too have a friend who eats horribly and is as thin as a rail. There can be other factors such as extremely high metabolism, and exercise that influence things, but if you eat more than you burn, most times you gain weight. Which is another way of saying I'm too lazy to go look. Show me a study that says you don't gain weight if you burn less calories than you consume first. My point was that it's something that's controllable, and a fat tax is a band aid, not a fix

 

[SOS2008]

Any explanation of the root causes of the current obesity epidemic must account for its sudden appearance. Six million American adults are now morbidly obese (BMI 40+), almost twice as high as 1980 severe obesity rates, while another 9.6 million have a BMI of 35-40. The percentage of overweight children 6-11 has nearly doubled since the early 1980's. (Source: US Census 2000; NHANES III data estimates). Thus genetic causes are unlikely to be significant. Because while a predisposition to obesity can be inherited, the fact that obesity has increased so much in the last few decades appears to discount genetics as a major main cause. Also, the fact that each succeeding generation is heavier than the last indicates that changes in our environment are playing the key role.
----------
Overconsumption - A Possible Root Cause
Eating too many calories for our energy needs must be a major candidate for the main cause of the modern obesity epidemic. According to Dr. Marion Nestle, Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at New York University, US agribusiness now produces 3,800 calories of food a day for every American, 500 calories more than 30 years ago — but at much lower per-calorie costs. Increases in consumption of calorie-dense foods, as evidenced by the growth of fast-food chains and higher soft drink consumption, also point to a higher energy-intake.

Eating Too Many High-Fat or Refined Sugary Foods
The type of food eaten may also play an important role in the rise of obesity. Researchers continue to discover more metabolic and digestive disorders resulting from overconsumption of trans-fats and refined white flour carbohydrates, combined with low fiber intake. These eating patterns are known to interfere with food and energy metabolism in the body, and cause excessive fat storage. Associated health disorders include insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes as well as obesity. Incidence of these "modern" diseases is increasing worldwide.

Reduced Energy Expenditure - A Possible Root Cause
People who eat more calories need to burn more calories, otherwise their calorie surplus is stored as fat. For example, if we eat 100 more food calories a day than we burn, we gain about 1 pound in a month. That’s about 10 pounds in a year. Over two decades this energy surplus causes a weight gain of 200 pounds!

http://www.annecollins.com/obesity/causes-of-obesity.htm

 

[Skyhunter]

Show me a study that says you don't gain weight if you burn less calories than you consume first.

http://www.healthypages.net/newsstory.asp?newsid=5280%20

A diet free of animal products and low in fat may help trim the waistline without the task of strict calorie watching, a new study suggests.

Researchers found that of 64 postmenopausal, overweight women, those assigned to follow a low-fat vegan diet for 14 weeks lost an average of 13 pounds, compared with a weight loss of about 8 pounds among women who followed a standard low-cholesterol diet.

The weight loss came despite the fact that the women were given no limits on their portion sizes or daily calories -- and despite the fact that the vegan diet boosted their carbohydrate intake.

They did decrease their caloric intake, probably due to the fact that plant foods are not as calorie dense as animal foods.

This may not fit your criteria exactly, however I lost 30lbs on a vegan diet without reducing the amount of food I consumed. If anything I increased the portion sizes and frequency of meals.

 

[rcgldr]

vegan diet - increased vitality

Then what was the issue with Bill Walton where his conversion to a vegetarian almost ended his basketball career?

How many sprinters / bicycle racers / weight lifters are vegans (maybe a few take vegan based protein powders to compensate)? Most eat a lot of very low fat meat, like turkey breast. Apparently the high calorie requirments of certain atheletes makes it near impossible to consume enough non-concentrated nutrients from a vegan diet.

 

[Evo]

http://www.healthypages.net/newsstory.asp?newsid=5280%20


They did decrease their caloric intake, probably due to the fact that plant foods are not as calorie dense as animal foods.

This may not fit your criteria exactly, however I lost 30lbs on a vegan diet without reducing the amount of food I consumed. If anything I increased the portion sizes and frequency of meals.

So, they ate less calories than they burned, as did you. This supports Zantra.

 

[Zantra]

So, they ate less calories than they burned, as did you. This supports Zantra.

You noticed that too?

Anyhow, even if you ate more, it was probably still less caloric intake because of change in the types of foods. If you eat 10 pounds worth of lettuce per day, you will loose more weight than the guy who eats 5 pounds of meat.

Thanks sky!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You know, I smoked over well over a decade (I don't anymore) and I knew it was bad for me. I knew the risks. But that never stopped me. And it also didn't stop everyone from lecturing me. Every day. Over and over and over. And did it sway me? No it did not because I wasn't in the dark and I made a conscious choice. The lectures and insults and berating changed nothing. Until one day I made another choice to quit. And eating is no different than smoking. When it comes to food people have to choose to eat healthy. And they won't change people of some tax. You can't force someone to get thin. They have to want to.

I thought the people who used to preach to me about smoking constantly were complete jerks. Especially the hypocrites who used to smoke and quit only to turn and lecture me. So I guess "jerk" is all a matter of perspective.

All that you have done is to state my objections. In the case of cigs and drink it's even worse because so many poor people are addicted to both. Taxes like this only hurt the poor and penalize those who are struggling addiction, which from what I understand appears more and more to be genetic.

But we do tax cigs and booze, with much of the tax on cigs is designed to be preventive. So are you saying that we should get rid of taxes on cigs? And if not, then how can we argue that a fat tax would not reduce fat consumption? All theoretical health arguments aside, if taxes help to prevent bad habbits, then a fat tax would help the majority of the US population since most eat too much fat. From there the logic can be extended ad infinitum.

 

[Zantra]

All that you have done is to state my objections. In the case of cigs and drink it's even worse because so many poor people are addicted to both. Taxes like this only hurt the poor and penalize those who are struggling addiction, which from what I understand appears more and more to be genetic.

But we do tax cigs and booze, with much of the tax on cigs is designed to be preventive. So are you saying that we should get rid of taxes on cigs? And if not, then how can we argue that a fat tax would not reduce fat consumption? All theoretical health arguments aside, if taxes help to prevent bad habbits, then a fat tax would help the majority of the US population since most eat too much fat. From there the logic can be extended ad infinitum.

I'm saying that a fat tax won't help people get thin, just like the impact of a tax on ciggs and alcohol only impacts people minimally. My ex fellow smokers used to complain about the rising cost of ciggs all the time, and constantly threatened to quit. But how many of them actually quit because of the price? None that I counted. Smokers count ciggarettes as basic necessities along with food and shelter. An extra buck a pack won't nab more than a small percentile of quitters. People on drugs go broke quickly when they develop a habit (unless they have substantial income) And if ciggarettes were priced comparably to drugs, you'd see a lot of similarities between crackheads and smokers. And by extension the same could apply to overeaters. If I live for twinkies, an extra 50 cents on a box of them won't make me rethink my eating habits.

Good intentions, wrong approach. They need a better plan of attack. The only thing a tax does is add to someone's pocket. But it doesn't prevent an addiction.

Maybe if they attacked the problem at the root? the problem starts with addict, not the supplier. How to do that is another issue