Seeking Alpha

The soda industry continues to push back at the contention of NYC Mayor Bloomberg amongst others...

The soda industry continues to push back at the contention of NYC Mayor Bloomberg amongst others that the nation's obesity issues and high level of soda intake are interwoven. According to data dug out by academics, despite getting close to 100% of the blame, extra sugar only accounts for 9% of the extra calories the U.S. population takes in today compared to 30 years ago. Of that 9% extra sugar rush, soda only makes up a subset of the total.
Comments (27)
  • Eddie Herring
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
     
    I tend to think the obesity issues have much more to do with sedentary life styles than soda intake.
    12 Oct 2012, 01:13 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    That's certainly /a/ factor, sure.

     

    But the reality is that there are a lot more sedentary thin people than there are active fat people -- the diet is the larger part of the equation.

     

    To put it another way: it's tough to burn an extra 1000 calories per day every day (muscles need recovery time), but it's not that hard to reduce one's diet by 1000 calories per day every day (accounting for good and bad calories, as noted below).
    12 Oct 2012, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    That is "a" factor, but not the major one. Calory intake since the 1950's is up an average of around 20% or more (depending on which chart you look at, but even the most optimistic I found shows 14%, the worst shows 28%).

     

    The biggest part of that increase comes from sugars, with carbs being 2nd. When some kid's cereals have over 50% sugar, I see that as a problem http://bit.ly/QW3rUR
    12 Oct 2012, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Leftist tyranny conspiracies aside -- let's get our science straight.

     

    Most of the modern research on nutrition indicates that it's not just about calories in and out, but more about what /kinds/ of calories.

     

    In terms of obesity relevance: sugar > regular carbs > most other calorie sources. I've known people who've lost a lot of weight just be switching from soda to coffee or tea.

     

    Another major contributor toward over-eating: container size. No joke.

     

    Flame on! :)
    12 Oct 2012, 01:15 PM Reply Like
  • davidingeorgia
    , contributor
    Comments (2713) | Send Message
     
    I think Mayor Bloomberg causes obesity. People hear him talk, when he's making one of his smiley-face fascist pronouncements, and get so despondent over how stupid large swathes of the human race have become to be silly enough to take him seriously that they go out (or stay in) and overeat to sooth their misery over his stupidity.

     

    That's my theory - Bloomberg Is Depressingly Stupid - and it has just about the same amount of scientific evidence supporting it as your anecdotes do. :-)
    12 Oct 2012, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • Walt17
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    Dime a dozen bloggers and book hyping nutrition experts make a distinction between what kind of calories contribute to weight gain. Science does not.
    12 Oct 2012, 01:22 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    http://nyti.ms/QW3boF (science)

     

    http://bit.ly/RCNK2H (blog, book, and science)

     

    http://amzn.to/QW3dgh (book, science)

     

    I could list a dozen more, but all the research is pretty much converging on the same recommendations: less sugar/carbs, smaller portions.

     

    If you have "science" to the contrary, please provide references. :)
    12 Oct 2012, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (866) | Send Message
     
    Drink all the soda you want, quit working and draw disability. Romney will cut taxes-pay you not to work-and start another war on borrowed money. I'm leaving now for a run to buy 3 cases of Pepsi and 15 bags of chips, if i gain 15 more pounds I become disabled.
    12 Oct 2012, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5137) | Send Message
     
    What the hell do softdrink calories have to do with Mitt Romney?

     

    This is not a political issue, it is a health issue. Large amounts of sugar that are found in these softdrinks are not good for anyone's health.

     

    There is a line between politics and certain issues. You can not keep blurring the line and hope to make a point.
    12 Oct 2012, 03:17 PM Reply Like
  • Drew Robertson
    , contributor
    Comments (312) | Send Message
     
    deer It really is politics after all. If Congress hadn't subsidized corn and protected sugar there wouldn't be so much corn syrup sloshing around. Besides KO and PEP, the real villain of this piece is ADM. They own enough Ds and Rs to make a quorum.
    12 Oct 2012, 03:24 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    You are confusing sugar, corn syrup, and HFCS. They are all different things.
    12 Oct 2012, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • Drew Robertson
    , contributor
    Comments (312) | Send Message
     
    I absolutely know the difference. And it's complicated. Here's a guy that fought subsidies for years (to his credit) but finally had to give in the logic of the corn lobby. http://bit.ly/QrqJiZ
    And there are plenty of Dems doing the same......
    12 Oct 2012, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    Few people seem to realize that the agribusiness subsidies are far more than the "evil big oil" subsidies.
    12 Oct 2012, 03:41 PM Reply Like
  • Drew Robertson
    , contributor
    Comments (312) | Send Message
     
    First they came for super sized soda pop. And I said nothing. Then they came for the double cheese stuffed pizza. And I said nothing, Then they came for Cheese Bacon Whoppers with extra cheese. And I said nothing. ............ This could go on for quite a while until we get to something that I care about.
    12 Oct 2012, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • Hubert Biagi
    , contributor
    Comments (689) | Send Message
     
    More of the same... reduce individual responsibility by distributing it over the entire population thru government led social engineering. What you end up with is even more irresponsible behavior.
    12 Oct 2012, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > thru government led social engineering

     

    Well, it was industry-led social engineering that largely /caused/ the epidemic, so it seems only fair that some other source of social engineering is needed to reverse it. :)
    12 Oct 2012, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • Hellz
    , contributor
    Comments (170) | Send Message
     
    Spin spin spin spin. Yes I disagree with mr. bloomberg
    12 Oct 2012, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • MasonK
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Should list the caloric effect of taking the elevator vs. the stairs, not on the soda.Post is right on the elevator. Have television monitor the calories you could be burning if you weren't watching it...
    12 Oct 2012, 04:05 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/URAGMZ

     

    If a 180 pound person climbs stairs for 10 minutes, they burn about 100 calories. So that's maybe 5 calories per flight of stairs.

     

    So you can climb 48 floors....or just skip that can of soda, which is like 240 calories (a lot of which is sugar).

     

    Come on, this is a finance website, people should at least be good at math!! :)
    12 Oct 2012, 05:29 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    Basically you need around 2-4 hours of hard exercise per day to burn up 1000 extra calories. While there is a problem with lack of exercise, the main contributor is simply too many calories.
    13 Oct 2012, 02:09 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    Actually in the US, it is probably NOT sugar - it is probably HFCS. It has the same calories as sugar, but the body does not treat it as sugar in some ways, such as having no appetite suppression.
    13 Oct 2012, 02:10 AM Reply Like
  • MasonK
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Would rather see caloric cost of taking the elevator vs. the stairs, maybe television could monitor the calories you're not burning by watching it. This is not the government's job.....
    12 Oct 2012, 05:50 PM Reply Like
  • Drew Robertson
    , contributor
    Comments (312) | Send Message
     
    Nor shd the government subsidize agriculture. Take away price supports and they'd grow a lot less corn in Iowa. Less corn means less corn syrup means less sweetener for soda pop. Bad for Iowa (cuz that's where I'm from) but good for NYC (where I am now). In contrast to most people on this board I often find myself in the poor neighborhoods of New York where I actually see the real world impact of these junk food diets. As a taxpayer who has to pay for the health costs the result I am glad Bloomberg is doing what he's doing.
    12 Oct 2012, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • phxcrane
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    And in ten years if they don't see any difference in the obesity level. They will say its because they should have also outlawed fries or cheese or chocolate. And on and on it goes. Until people are responsible for themselves none of the laws will work. But it does keep the politicians busy.
    12 Oct 2012, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • GeorgeTS
    , contributor
    Comments (77) | Send Message
     
    Why pick on soda, all products are super sizing portions to charge more per purchase. Packaging usually costs more than the content. On the other side consumers want the most for their buck, 40 oz is only 25 cents more that the 16 oz. hey give me the big one. This applies to many more products people consume. But Bloomerg dosn't go after double cheese burger yet. Let the people decide for themselves!
    12 Oct 2012, 09:45 PM Reply Like
  • bjb1968
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Per capita consumption of sugared soft drinks has DECLINED every year since the mid 90's. If soft drinks were the issue we would be getting slimmer not fatter. The issue is how much we sit on our rears and how much we EAT while we sit on our rear. If you are out walking, hiking, playing with the kids, working in the yard, flying a kite, etc you aren't sitting on your rear stuffing your face
    13 Oct 2012, 01:57 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4254) | Send Message
     
    Of sugared soft drinks yes, but there is sugar in almost everything else now - looking at a can of chili beans, and one ingredient is sugar...
    13 Oct 2012, 02:12 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|