News The philosophy behind the Fat Tax

[Skyhunter]

But it didn't specifically track calorie intake or exersize, there appear to be no controls at all. It makes it meaningless.

I sent an email to get a copy of the study.

 

[Skyhunter]

They are of course marketing to the weak. It's appalling.

Oh, don't even get me started on why a bottle of water costs as much as a soda or bottle of juice. It's stupid consumers. Don't buy it! But no...let's all pay $1.25 for 8 ounces of water.

It is far better all the way around to get a good stainless steel bottle you can refill. It is cheaper, doesn't need to be discarded or recycled, and the water tastes better coming from SS.

 

[Evo]

I sent an email to get a copy of the study.

I've always eaten a pretty much vegetarian diet, having meat maybe once or twice a year.

I was COMPLETELY against the low carb Atkins diet. I was on a low calorie vegetable diet and losing nothing. But so many people I worked with did it (Atkins) and lost tons of weight. I wanted to drop pounds quickly (due to my knee injury) and started pigging out on meat, ate tons, and dropped 10lbs in two weeks and felt stuffed the whole time. It works. Just eats tons of meat and the weight will drop off faster than you can imagine.

 

[rcgldr]

The conference schedule includes talks from endurance athletes like Brazier and Christine Vardaros, a world class cyclo-cross racer, who has risen to the top of her sport as a vegan. But even in the protein-crazed sport of bodybuilding vegans are finding success.

As I mentioned before, a lot of atheletes require concentrated protein and carbodryates. In the extreme cases, "pre-digested" proteins (whatever that is). It probably doesn't matter if the concenatrated stuff comes from plant of animal, it's highly processed.

I don't know the calorie requirements of a tri-athelete since they compete in single day versus multiple days. But top level bicyclists, weighing around 150 to 160lbs, can consume 3000 to 12,000 calories a day depending on the type of competition. They require concentrated foods to supplement their diets to keep from losing weigh. A top level bicyclist can output about 1/3rd horsepower for hours, day after day. There are are also some benefits to eating meat (as an alternative to taking steroids):

http://www.simplyfit.com/R-NUT-SP-NU.htm#1

 

[Pengwuino]

I've always eaten a pretty much vegetarian diet, having meat maybe once or twice a year.

Aren't you normally sick every other week?

 

[Skyhunter]

There are are also some benefits to eating meat (as an alternative to taking steroids):

http://www.simplyfit.com/R-NUT-SP-NU.htm#1

Yes eating meat raises the testosterone level. But like with steroids, the body pays a price.

Meatless diets, too, are popular, as many in the medical community recommend them; however, these athletes tend to be lactose vegetarians, which means that they do eat low and nonfat dairy products and eggs for sources of complete proteins.

As you can infer from this article, the trend with athletes is toward a more plant based diet. If this trend were more universal, the human race would be healthier.

I have two teenage sons who eat a vegan diet, they have lost their cravings for sweets and junk food. My oldest last night roasated a pan full of turnips for a snack. Roasted turnips are naturally sweet and delicious.

Instead of taxing the people who eat the high fat diet, I would stop subsidizing cheap meat and penalize the companies that market unhealthy foods. Especially those that target their advertising toward children.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But would a tax on unhealthy foods (such as 3 & 1/2 cans of sugary soda) make the food service industry rethink what they are promoting if the product becomes too expensive.

In the original report that I saw, it was mentioned that there already is a sugar tax. It was either stated or perhaps implied that this was intended to limit the consumption of sugar.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Smoking is a PRIVILAGE

So then drinking Coke is also a privilage?

 

[Azael]

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.

It is very easy for those that know how to do it. But you can't expect EVERYONE to suddently develop a interest in nutrition and learn what to combine with what to get the right aminoacids.
There is no (health)reason what so ever to completely avoid meat, eggs and diary in a diet.

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.

I can argue from personal experience that dropping meat didnt make any real difference to me. Because of money constrains(meat is fairly expensive in sweden) I ditched meat and ate greens, beans and whey protein for 4 months. So arguing things from a personal perspective proves nothing.

If you lost 30ibs from switching diet you obviously ate to much kcal from meat. So don't blame the meat. Blame the overconsumption of meat.

Not to mention losing fat is easier on a high protein diet and medium to low carb diet. Eating like that with a plants only diet is insanely hard. Everyone interested in preserving and increasing muscle mass while losing fat benefits from a high protein diet.

Returning to the original post in this thread.
I would like to se products containing trans fats banned(like in denmark). But Il rather se healthy food subsidised than fatty foods taxed.
Since not even nutritionist and docs can agree on what's bad or not it would be imensly hard to tax "bad" food. Just remember all the crap that was said about eggs and cholesterol vaules a few years ago. I am sure we will find that plenty of saturated fats are healthy aswell.

IMO all foods can be bad or good for you depending on the rest of your diet. You can't just point at one food and say "that is bad". Its not that simple.

As for where the line should be drawn. In the case with obesity I guess it depends. If the healthcare is socialised like in sweden something has to be done before the population turn to fat, to unhealthy and ruin the economy. So I would say since the government is providing a service they can demand something back. There should be something like to get free healthcare you need to agree to yearly health checkups. If you knowingly do something detrimental to your health you won't get free healthcare. If you year by year increase bodyfat significantly you won't get free healthcare for any condition related to obesity(but if you trip and break a leg that will be covered offcourse). But you should get free guidance(dietary counceling ect) to lose the fat. Same with other lifestyle related and avoidable conditions.

If fat people in the usa is hurting healthy peoples economies by making insurance rates go up its a flaw in the insurance system. Would higher taxes solve that in anyway?

 

[Azael]

I've always eaten a pretty much vegetarian diet, having meat maybe once or twice a year.

I was COMPLETELY against the low carb Atkins diet. I was on a low calorie vegetable diet and losing nothing. But so many people I worked with did it (Atkins) and lost tons of weight. I wanted to drop pounds quickly (due to my knee injury) and started pigging out on meat, ate tons, and dropped 10lbs in two weeks and felt stuffed the whole time. It works. Just eats tons of meat and the weight will drop off faster than you can imagine.

Are you sure most of that wasnt just water weight coming of quickly? Carbs retain a lot of fluid in the body. If you go on a keto diet you piss out several pounds of water in a matter of days.

 

[Azael]

As you can infer from this article, the trend with athletes is toward a more plant based diet. If this trend were more universal, the human race would be healthier.

It would be healthier not because it limits meat consumption. But because most people just don't eat enough veggies. There are several tribes of people that have mostly meat based diets and yet have none of the conditions plauging modern society. Meat is obviously not the issue.

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 if the taxes help to pay for the healthcare of those same people when they develop a condition for smoking/beeing fat, isn't the tax really helping them not penalizing them?

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.

Maby the logic could be extended ad infinitum. But is it likely it would be? Could there be enough justification for a mountain climbing tax? A tax for playing football? A tax for doing martial arts? A tax for having many sexual partners?
I don't think that line of thinking could go on forever. But taxing things that are big problems like smoking, drinking and fast food might have a positive impact and should be examined closely without beeing afraid the same thing will happen to everything that might be dangerous or unhealthy. It certainly is a better option than a ban if something has to be done.

 

[Zantra]

Smoking isn't a privlege it's a choice, just as eating is a choice. The vasty majority of people have the means to smoke, so there's nothing elitist about it.

 

[Zantra]

So then you would repeal the taxes on cigarettes, booze, gambling?

But at the heart of this is the central question of public domain verses personal choice - this is really what matters here. Another tax is just another tax, and frankly I could really care less about that in and of itself.

The logic applied is that since your actions could potentially cost me money in either taxes or insurance costs, I get to dictate how you live - I [citizen] can penalize you for violations.

In order to quantify the concept, how about if we establish a baseline? What must be the potential threat to society [in dollars], in order to impose a tax or penalty? Should we use dollars as the unit of measure? Of course we can look to seatbelt and helmet laws, as well as smoking and drinking for the estimated cost to the public per capita. We can look at the probability of a person's actions resulting in public liability, then we can look at any potential issue and check to see if it falls within the limits, and what the penalty should be.

Does this seem reasonable?

I'm saying that I don't think repealing those taxes would result in a significant increase in smoking boozing or gambling. Regardless of the economic benefit I don't think it makes anything cost prohibitive.

When you talk about penalizing the comparisons you use don't directly translate. There's a difference between indirect penalties like taxes on goods, and a direct fine, such as a seatbelt ticket. To get the same effect, you'd have to start fining people for ingesting twinkies. I can just see that scenario playing out

"License and registration. Sir how many have you had today?"

"this is my first one I swear" Officer points to at least 5 empty twinkie wrappers on the car floor

"Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to step out of the car"...

True, people's weight can effect people in terms of healthcare cost, but that should be subsized on a more direct basis, not with a tax. If someone wants to overeat they should be able to. That does infringe upon people's right to privacy.

Consider the recent actions of a healthcare company who forbid it's employees to smoke. Next it will be forbidding overweight people to work there. The line has to be drawn somewhere. I think making an individual's health a public responsibility through penalty is the wrong approach

 

[Skyhunter]

It would be healthier not because it limits meat consumption. But because most people just don't eat enough veggies. There are several tribes of people that have mostly meat based diets and yet have none of the conditions plauging modern society. Meat is obviously not the issue.

Could you cite examples and references to these tribes?

I think you are assuming too much from what is considered common knowledge. Heart disease is caused by eating meat, and is the #1 or #2 cause of premature death in the U.S. Eating meat puts dietary cholesterol and fat into the bloodstream, this in and of itself affects performance by impairing the bloods ability to carry oxygen and other nutrients throughout the body.

Instead of offering your own opinion, why not discover the real reason that many in the medical community advocate a meatless diet for athletes.

 

[Azael]

Could you cite examples and references to these tribes?

I think you are assuming too much from what is considered common knowledge. Heart disease is caused by eating meat, and is the #1 or #2 cause of premature death in the U.S. Eating meat puts dietary cholesterol and fat into the bloodstream, this in and of itself affects performance by impairing the bloods ability to carry oxygen and other nutrients throughout the body.

Instead of offering your own opinion, why not discover the real reason that many in the medical community advocate a meatless diet for athletes.

Just read up on Inuits, Yupiks and Sames. Before they started changing lifestyles that is. None of them suffer from the lifestyle diseases of the west and all of them have a diet that is based on meat and animal fat. I have no links or refs saved but I will try and find some.
EDIT I found this one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=2278597&query_hl=15&itool=pubmed_DocSum

Obesity, arterial hypertension, hyperuricemia and diabetes mellitus while almost unknown in the past, have now been added to the list of Cree and Inuit health problems

You are aware that dietary cholesterol has close to no impact at all on blood cholesterol levels right? Se links below

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16340654&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

It is also important to note that 70% of the population experiences a mild increase or no alterations in plasma cholesterol concentrations when challenged with high amounts of dietary cholesterol

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16317122&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum (not from meat but still dietary cholesterol)

We conclude from this study that dietary cholesterol provided by eggs does not increase the risk for heart disease in a healthy elderly population.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16596800&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

This is consistent with the finding that an increase in dietary cholesterol intake results in only a minimal increase in the total/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio. Taken together these studies suggest that the association between dietary cholesterol and CHD is small

Egg yolks have far far more cholesterol in it than meat and yet yolks has no real impact on blood cholesterol except for small groups.

In what possible way do cholesterol levels limit oxygen and nutrient transportation in the body?

Another edit:
Aslong as we are mentioning personal experiences. I usualy eat a lot of meat and ALOT of eggs and these are my cholesterol and triglycerid values. As you can se I have better cholesterol values than most(twice as much hdl than ldl) so obviously meat has zero negative impact on my cholesterol. I do eat a lot of greens aswell.
Total cholesterol 2.6Mmol/L (100mg/dl)
Triglycerides 0.28Mmol/L (24.85mg/dl)
HDL 1.7Mmol/L (65,4mg/dl)
LDL 0.8Mmol/L (30.7mg/dl)

 

[loseyourname]

Just read up on Inuits, Yupiks and Sames. Before they started changing lifestyles that is. None of them suffer from the lifestyle diseases of the west and all of them have a diet that is based on meat and animal fat.

That's actually true of all indigenous arctic people, not just the North American ones you mention. I believe the North American tribes eat mostly caribou and fish, correct? Siberian tribes (Eveny, Evenki, Chukchi) eat almost nothing but reindeer and have the same good health.

In fact, it's worth mentioning that a vegetarian diet isn't even an option to these people. Plants suitable for human consumption rarely grow up in the tundra. Animals are about all they can eat.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When you talk about penalizing the comparisons you use don't directly translate. There's a difference between indirect penalties like taxes on goods, and a direct fine, such as a seatbelt ticket.

Yes, you have to get caught in order to pay a seat belt tax. The way that the logic is applied, the tax really is a fine. Why do we impose fines? We seek to prevent the same behavior in the future. This all crosses the line between being a direct threat to someone else, and a potential economic liability to society as a whole. The point is not whether the penalty comes in the form of a tax or fine, it is the logic behind the tax or penalty. But all in all, we mostly agree.

But if the taxes help to pay for the healthcare of those same people when they develop a condition for smoking/beeing fat, isn't the tax really helping them not penalizing them?

That's the basic logic used to justify the approach. The problem is that taxes go to the government, and in addition to the out of pocket costs to the patient, insurance pays for most people's medical costs. Also, if smoking and drinking really kill people at a younger age, then it seem that we avoid long term extended care in the twilight years, and I have serious doubts that bad habbits end up costing the public more. Almost everyone who lives long enough will get sick; costing the system a fortune. The offenders die first, thus costing less that those who live long lives - sometimes a cost the system for decades after retirement. Also, since they [smokers, drinkers, and saturaged fat eaters south of the 80th parallel] are less likely to live to collect social security, as a percentage we avoid that huge liablity to that system as well. So it seems possible that the entire justification is bogus.

Edit: There is also the question of how many people actually get the so called medical care claimed. How many people who don't take care of themselves actually frequent the doctors office? Also, as a related note, if my wife and I and the rest of my family hadn't been all over the doctors constantly, the system was going to let mom lie there and die. And she has great insurance. WIthout an advocate, the system clearly fails.

Maby the logic could be extended ad infinitum. But is it likely it would be?

IMO, beyond any doubt, yes. I already predicted that your toilet will one day be talking to your insurance company, doctor, and employer. We can tax anthing, and by some means we can control anything that we can monitor. In this regard, we have already gone so far beyond what I thought possible in my lifetime that it's downright terrifying.

 

[Azael]

That's actually true of all indigenous arctic people, not just the North American ones you mention. I believe the North American tribes eat mostly caribou and fish, correct? Siberian tribes (Eveny, Evenki, Chukchi) eat almost nothing but reindeer and have the same good health.

Not sure what North American tribes eat. But I know the Sames(northern sweden, norway, finland and russia) used to survive mostly on reindeer and I guess berries in the summer. I susect the sibirian tribes you mentioned are Sames aswell.

In fact, it's worth mentioning that a vegetarian diet isn't even an option to these people. Plants suitable for human consumption rarely grow up in the tundra. Animals are about all they can eat.

Exactly! In northern sweden where the Sames live there is hardly any edible plant life except berries during a few months of the year. Saying meat is the cause of heart disease is a lie that is clearly falsified by the artic people.

That's the basic logic used to justify the approach. The problem is that taxes go to the government, and in addition to the out of pocket costs to the patient, insurance pays for most people's medical costs. Also, if smoking and drinking really kill people at a younger age, then it seem that we avoid long term extended care in the twilight years, and I have serious doubts that bad habbits end up costing the public more. Almost everyone who lives long enough will get sick; costing the system a fortune. The offenders die first, thus costing less that those who live long lives - sometimes a cost the system for decades after retirement. Also, since they [smokers, drinkers, and saturaged fat eaters south of the 80th parallel] are less likely to live to collect social security, as a percentage we avoid that huge liablity to that system as well. So it seems possible that the entire justification is bogus.

I guess its different in a country like mine because here healthcare is socialised.
Taxes will have a imidiet impact on the healthcare system. The cost of the healthcare system is going up with a aging and more sic population so there is a net cost to the public by the people with bad habits. I doubt our system can survive if our population get as fat as the american. Unfortunaly we are on that road.

Edit: There is also the question of how many people actually get the so called medical care claimed. How many people who don't take care of themselves actually frequent the doctors office? Also, as a related note, if my wife and I and the rest of my family hadn't been all over the doctors constantly, the system was going to let mom lie there and die. And she has great insurance. WIthout an advocate, the system clearly fails.

Here just about everyone gets the medical care they need. We are getting better and better at keeping very sic people alive for a lot longer.
I can't even begin to count everyone I know that is on some kind of medication(payed for by my taxes) that could be avoided with different habits.

Im sorry to hear that about your mom . Sounds like the system really failed.

IMO, beyond any doubt, yes. I already predicted that your toilet will one day be talking to your insurance company, doctor, and employer. We can tax anthing, and by some means we can control anything that we can monitor. In this regard, we have already gone so far beyond what I thought possible in my lifetime that it's downright terrifying.

I guess I am to young and to optimistic :) But I don't believe we(as in western society as a whole) will get to far down that path. I don't se how the voting public would allow it. I don't even se how politicians would want that to happen.

 

[dusanmal]

What fat tax money will be use for? One example...

At the same time when there is a soda-fat-tax talk going arround, government is spending our taxes other way arround...

http://communitydispatch.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/17/2651

Shortly speaking, govt. is funding research on how to produce meat (from livestock) that contains more fat (beyond simple feeding, but with chemical additives)...

 

[Skyhunter]

But it didn't specifically track calorie intake or exersize, there appear to be no controls at all. It makes it meaningless.

I got a copy of the study.

Caloric intake and excercise were closely monitored.

Dietary intake was recorded on 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day, using a food scale, after participants had completed a full practice record. The 3-day dietary record, prepared using a food scale, has good test-retest reliability and provides a more accurate estimate of macronutrient intake than food frequency questionnaires. Records were analyzed using the Nutritionist V, Version 2.0 for Windows 98 (First DataBank Inc., Hearst Corporation, San Bruno, Calif). On 3 occasions, a registered dietitian conducted 24-hour food recalls, followed by individual meetings to discuss any deviations from the prescribed diet. Recalls were not used for statistical comparisons.
Physical activity was assessed with the Bouchard 3-Day Physical Activity Record. This measure was selected to assess the degree to which participants acceded to the requirement that they not alter their exercise habits during the study, rather than to precisely estimate energy expenditure. A study of 61 subjects showed the Bouchard 3-Day Physical Activity Record to yield a highly reproducible results, as shown by an intraclass correlation of 0.96 for mean energy expenditure over 3 days, and favorable correlations with measures of physical working capacity.

[edit] PM me if anyone would like a copy of the complete study. [/edit]