This. I had an emotional meltdown or six about my weight and looks this week after really not caring much for the last two years. You explained it perfectly.
What I find most maddening about this sort of thing is trying to cover so I don't transmit insanity to my kids. I'm not very neurotically self-loathing about my weight and looks by American standards, but I've certainly got a fair amount of it going on, and I really don't want to give the impression that feeling that way is normal or healthy. Which means a fair amount of effort keeping a facade on in front of the kids. And that feels phony and deceptive, but I'm not seeing a better option.
Caroline has turned very femme and fashion conscious, despite our efforts not to model such things.
I think she's decided that having a relaxed, healthy attitude toward your appearance is something that boring grown-ups do, like balancing your checkbook or staring at your computer and saying you can't play because you have to answer some emails for work.
Fashion-conscious (on a reasonable level) isn't necessarily linked to being unhealthily self-critical. "Decorating myself is fun!" is a different feeling from "I must conceal all my shameful imperfections." For someone approaching it with the first attitude, being interested in being fashiony/pretty isn't any more unhealthy than any other hobby.
4: True, and its hard to tell where C. is going with this right now. Mostly she just likes being fancy, but periodically she makes comments about her weight, which is like, "where did that come from."
It's amazing how young they pick up weirdness from other adults (either directly, or secondhand through other kids).
There's a man with the instincts of a fascist. I agree that drinking more than 16 oz of soda in a serving is gross and unhealthy, and really more like 8 oz. But regulating soda serving sizes is disturbingly intrusive micromanagement. (Note to libertarians: Not a leftist. A billionaire businessman who ran as a Republican.)
It sounds to me, LB, like your feelings are completely normal, but not healthy. Conflating normal and healthy seems problematic to me (and not just in this context).
As far as soda goes, I'd like to get some information on how unhealthy my diet coke habit is.
As long as you don't drink it, diet soda is fine.
It is weird how many people I know who are put off by Bloomberg's move. It initially struck me as the kind of little thing that actually might make a big health difference while not inconveniencing people much at all. As Lindsay Beyerstein noted, people have an urge to eat all of whatever portion they are given. In general, controlling portion size has been a big target for public health types.
Yeah, normal may be a word that's best avoided completely. If you identify anything that's common, or ordinary, or not unusual as 'normal', which I think is how you're using it, that carries a strong implication that whatever it is can't be a significant problem, which makes me want to avoid that usage where I think that ordinary, average behaviors are significantly harmful. On the other hand, identifying anything as normal or not normal is unfortunately shaming for people who fall outside whatever the claimed norm is.
I'm fat (read: out-of-shape and unhealthy) as shit right now after a year of sitting on my ass and stuffing myself with pizza and cake and stress, but I think I've figured out how to run without hurting myself, so I'll be a princess again anytime now.
I have a co-worker who brings in a cake every time there's a birthday in the lab. With approximately thirty people in the lab, that means a lot of cake. Store-bought cakes are disgusting, so she has decided she will bake cakes for everybody's birthday. Yesterday it was a six-layer butterscotch cake with cake butter (which is a thing) frosting drizzled with caramel. If Bloomberg could (politely) ban her from doing that (the cakes are delicious) that'd be great.
Should I go for a run?
My knee has been hurting and it is raining on and off. On the other hand, I haven't run in like two weeks and there's an audiobook I would like to listen to.
Please, make decisions for me.
Eh, thirty pieces of cake a year aren't making you fat, and it does sound like very good cake.
But you should run. I did already this morning with Newt.
Run, Rob, run! Even if you get rained on it's worth it. Plus running in the rain is kind of fun.
17: If your knee is raining, see a doctor before running.
12: My wingnut dad is one of those dumbasses who gets all bent out of shape about the new lightbulb mandates. He has explicitly conceded that they are vastly superior to the old ones on every important metric, but he just hates the idea of the government saying he can't buy the shitty, destructive ones anymore. Lots of Americans are obsessed with freedom in the dumbest and most pointless way possible.
It's funny, the lightbulb thing I totally agree with you. Regulating permissible serving size of a legal foodstuff on the other hand, I find nuts and intrusive. Not the biggest deal in the world, but definitely seeming symptomatic of someone who's got the wrong idea about how much the government should be messing with people.
23: Once it's done, if it's done, the public will immediately forget about it and never give a shit ever again.
Regulating permissible serving size
Do not like the original idea, but I'm trying to decide if I'd be OK with a tax which rose exponentially past some threshold serving size and I think in theory I am. But would probably just be yet another regressive tax.
I agree that no one will notice or mind much once it happens. I still want to punch Bloomberg for it.
The Big Gulp is not some fly-by-night soda size.
heebie, I know you didn't want consoling comments, but I do want to say that I've been impressed that you were finding time for Crossfit (or other exercise) and that you've got the level of body competence you do. Maybe I'm partly jealous because the storm going on outside has my joints feeling like they're being ripped apart, but having a healthy and active body is so great.
Having never seen pictures of any of the unfoggeteers, my mental images of you all are just as vague as they were ~7 years ago when I discovered the blog. No weight gain at all!
My feelings are mixed about the soda serving size thing. On the one hand, it is intrusive in a kind of obnoxious way. On the other hand, I used to interacted somewhat regularly with people who are involved with clinical research as well as treatment of childhood obesity & diabetes, and boy did they ever hate and despise soft drinks.
Be serious for ailment, Moby. Where are the studies on diet soda with aspartame? A lot of the people sound sort of woo.
I know that Splenda is supposed to destroy good bacteria in your gut, so the lack of calories doesn't help to promote weight loss. I use Splenda all the time. I keep hoping that eating yogurt and some fermented foods wil help me overcome that.
Stupid autocorrect "ailment" should be "a moment."
They* should probably just tax sugar and sugar-like stuff (corn syrup) at a rate sufficient to ensure the soda costs more than the cup and the labor to fill it. The trick would be to set the rate such that it doesn't just lead to importation of finished goods containing sugar and doesn't start a WTO smackdown.
* I should say "we" since this is a democracy and all but I really like sugar so somebody else will have to do the actual politics.
If you are the sort of gross human being who likes to drink large amounts of soda in one sitting, you can just buy more than one, right? That's still an option. I'm trying to see what the downside to this is, but just can't.
Woo to the people who are serious for ailment.
Heebie, if you think you feel fat now, just wait 'til your kids are teenage athletes and you're waddling into middle age. Especially now that we're essentially the same height, I feel like Keegan's silently mocking me every time I stand beside him.
34: Antecedent of 'this' is the soda regulation.
31: I'm always serious for ailment. I don't actually know the research on artificial sweeteners, but I do know a few doctors who won't touch the stuff. I won't drink more than a couple of diet sodas a week.
If you wanted to carry it with you? Two cups is very different from one.
Has the lunch with your (distant, possibly critical) old friend happened? When I meet people like that again after a long absence, I usually feel like crap for awhile. Comparisons are odorous.
In the land of one cup, the two cup girl will bring the boys to the yard.
39: This seems like an acceptable burden to bear in exchange for something that is guaranteed to improve public health significantly, and especially children's health.
34: The cup/bottle and the labor to store/vend it is a major portion of the cost. Requiring smaller sizes will raise the cost of drinking soda. That's kind of the whole point of the rule, of course, but it is a downside to people who drink a ton of soda.
I am Apo. Sally's basically my height and eerily doppelgängerish, except for being leanly athletic and generally physically perfect. It is wrong to feel in any way bad about this, but I do feel a bit like an old car with mismatched fenders eyeing this year's model.
and you're waddling into middle age
Deluding yourself about when "middle age" starts is a good first step.
31: I was going to link to all these articles where they talk about how awful diet sodas are for your metabolism, but it looks like the more recent studies suggest that the correlation isn't directly between diet soda and metabolic syndrome. Instead, people who drink diet sodas often eat terrible things and the overall diet causes metabolic syndrome. See, e.g., this article.
On artificial sweeteners and weight gain. This stuff all hit the news after a study in 2008. Tasting sweet things but not feeling satiated makes you want to eat more because it only activates part of the normal 'satiety' pathway. You could get around that by rigorously monitoring your food intake, but there's still the more worrying prospect that there may be a direct route from ingesting sweet substances to stimulating fat cell production.
The nightmare scenario is that sweeteners directly stimulate insulin release, leading ultimately to metabolic syndrome and type-II diabetes, but this is (as far as I know) unconfirmed right now. Still, I'm a little uneasy about the diet coke in my fridge.
This has been another edition of Morning Coffee research. Someone who's a real nutritionist want to step in here?
Someone who's a real nutritionist want to step in here?
That only works for Alton Brown.
Requiring smaller sizes will raise the cost of drinking soda. That's kind of the whole point of the rule
I imagine that's another benefit, but surely it would be somewhat effective via portion control even if it had no impact on the price of smaller cups.
For the record, I also thought this was a good idea (taxes are difficult to pull off, plus apparently they need to be pretty steep to have an effect, but portions have more normative power to sway people) and am surprised that people think it's worse than a tax.
...but it is a downside to people who drink a ton of soda.
I think it may be the precise opposite of that...
4
Fashion-conscious (on a reasonable level) isn't necessarily linked to being unhealthily self-critical. "Decorating myself is fun!" is a different feeling from "I must conceal all my shameful imperfections." For someone approaching it with the first attitude, being interested in being fashiony/pretty isn't any more unhealthy than any other hobby.
It seems like it is potentially problematic as it may become less fun as you develop imperfections with age. Being obsessed with your looks isn't such a problem when objectively you look really great.
I'm not saying that it will raise the price of smaller cups. I'm saying that two smaller cups will cost more than one cup of the same volume as the two cups combined.
seeing lots of photos of myself from our Memorial Day beach weekend. Exacerbated by being at my parents house, with lots of photos of myself as a teenager, and lots of people who remember me looking like I did,
Sigh. This for me in spades this past weekend which included a reunion with college swimming folks from 35 years past (and intervening years). Lots of pictures. And about half the folks were still reasonable facsimiles of their former selves. In particular one of my best friends from the group who confessed that his weight has been between 145-160 pounds as an adult and has begun doing more rock and mountain-climbing again. But I think I hid the bodies good.
Plus like apo in 36, my stick-thin same-height son and his college friends and droves of other college kids.
Plus recent object lessons on the desirability of avoiding becoming an old, fat diabetic.
48: And back to the OP, Alton's *really* let himself go.
So, basically all the 20oz soda bottles you find on the shelf are going to turn into 16ox soda bottles. I guess that's not the worst thing in the world.
It also might be good for encouraging people to buy soda in cans, which are both smaller, and more recyclable.
Being obsessed with your looks isn't such a problem when objectively you look really great.
Which is why Karen Carpenter had no issues at all.
Of course, my preferred strategy is to buy a 2 liter, and use it to top off smaller bottles. You are still going to be able to buy 2 liter sizes, yes?
the sort of gross human being who likes to drink large amounts of soda in one sitting
I just don't think it works that way. Who says to themself, 'I'm not really satisfied unless I drink a liter of soda at a time'? People who are presented with the option of buying a liter-sized bottle of soda, that's who.
Am reading the articles in 46 and 47 while quaffing my 20 0z. Diet Mountain Dew....
Being obsessed with your looks isn't such a problem when objectively you look really great.
Who's deciding the 'objective' POV here? Body issues don't necessarily correlate with how well or poorly you match up to the current ideal.
59: Assuming nobody really actually wants massively stupid shit and that they will realize such if forced to reflect is nearly always wrong.
8
... (Note to libertarians: Not a leftist. A billionaire businessman who ran as a Republican.)
According to Wikipedia he was a Democrat before seeking elective office. And a New York City Republican is not the same as a Texas Republican. Nationally he is definitely well left of center.
This wouldn't affect grocery or convenience stores.
and that they will realize such if forced to reflect
I was more trying to say that I don't think people reflect particularly much on this. Grab the biggest single serving available and go.
65: I was more trying to say that I don't think people reflect particularly much on this. Grab the biggest single serving available and go.
Some people do this, and some people do not. My original point was that the former are gross.
66: That's the attitude that will win the day!
Really, how is this different from, say, banning flavored cigarettes? I am alarmed at the implicit idea that regulations on unhealthy things are only legitimate if they're taxes.
22
My wingnut dad is one of those dumbasses who gets all bent out of shape about the new lightbulb mandates. He has explicitly conceded that they are vastly superior to the old ones on every important metric, but he just hates the idea of the government saying he can't buy the shitty, destructive ones anymore. Lots of Americans are obsessed with freedom in the dumbest and most pointless way possible.
My new townhouse contains a zillion spotlights and I will certainly be bent out of shape if the mandates make them difficult to replace. And what's the current story with bulbs on dimmers or in enclosed fixtures?
And what's the current story with bulbs on dimmers or in enclosed fixtures?
That's up to the death panels to determine.
65: I suppose that's possible, but I think that people are very likely to notice when something they are used to buying is gone regardless of whether or not they actually put thought into deciding to buy it.
Down the pub last night:
"Not drinking?"
"No, I have to stay fairly sober, I'm a medic after all."
"True, you should keep a steady hand. We might ask you to cannulate someone."
"Or catheterise them."
"No, that would just be taking the piss."
70: We use CFL's with a dimmer. It hasn't been a problem. I'm not sure how enclosed fixtures matters for the type of bulb since the old kind was the one that made all the heat.
This is reminding me of the individual mandate, in that people deem it bad based more on novelty than any rational reason. (Again, present company excluded.)
Something two tickets to the gun show something.
This wouldn't affect grocery or convenience stores.
That's good news for me, then; I generally buy my poison at the convenience store downstairs.
74
... I'm not sure how enclosed fixtures matters for the type of bulb since the old kind was the one that made all the heat.
But the old kind didn't care if they got hot. CFL's do (or did until recently) and may burn out quickly in enclosed fixtures.
69, 75: I am alarmed at the implicit idea that regulations on unhealthy things are only legitimate if they're taxes.
Good point. I'm studying on it, because boy was my kneejerk reaction to think the idea was a poor one. I recall LB that has admitted that she "hate[s] and fear[s] novelty" (with regard to Words with Friends vs. Scrabble) and I guess I am in the same category but without the self-awareness.
It seems to me that there's a simpler intervention than banning large sizes or taxing them: require more products be priced proportionally to size. Much of the reason people get larger sizes is the feeling of saving money.
It seems to me that there's a simpler intervention than banning large sizes or taxing them: require more products be priced proportionally to size.
That's not a bad idea either.
Caroline has turned very femme and fashion conscious, despite our efforts not to model such things.
I think a certain amount of that is inevitable and that trying to prevent it is akin to telling them to not have sex until they're married. It's going to happen and the best you can do is try to steer it in a healthy direction. So the lifting and the crossfit type workouts along with avoiding refined carbs and such is just a routine we have that happens to make them pleased with their looks as a nice side benefit.
78: There's a certain kind of bulb for the cannister fixtures but I don't know about other types.
It seems to me that there's a simpler intervention than banning large sizes or taxing them: require more products be priced proportionally to size.
Stupid consumers, trying to ave money by buying in bulk. We'll learn you!
The soda thing is different from the light bulb regs because the govt. or anyone else protecting you from yourself tends to be annoying as fuck.
At least they stopped urging infibulation to prevent onanism.
It's apparently National Doughnut Day.
I don't hate America. Just saying.
Every year, motor cycle helmet law constrain the freedom of bikers and people who need organ transplants.
86: To be more precise, new attempts by the government to protect us from ourselves are annoying as fuck. The vast network of already existing laws and regulations that have made life longer, healthier, and happier for everyone are simply not noticed by the general public.
86: To be more precise, new attempts by the government to protect us from ourselves are annoying as fuck. The vast network of already existing laws and regulations that have made life longer, healthier, and happier for everyone are simply not noticed by the general public.
89 was meant to have this link which explicitly explores the slippery slope from seat belt laws to a vision of a Bloombergian hell.
I'm still upset about water fluoridation and having to stay out of food service work in order to escape mandatory hand washing.
The soda thing is different from the light bulb regs because the govt. or anyone else protecting you from yourself tends to be annoying as fuck.
And even those of us on the pro-nanny-state side just react with depression that this is what somebody with control over the nanny state chooses as the big battle.
Seat belt and helmet laws and their ilk are still annoying. At least when everyone was smoking they were all thin and sexy and sharp witted. Now everyone's just all tubby and burned out.
Why would you want to not wear a seat belt?
I find this sort of thing very different in intrusiveness/assholishness than most health and safety regulations. "Sale of food that's poisonous in a way that's undetectable to the consumer is banned." Fine. "Sale of food without labeling allowing the consumer to evaluate health benefits and risks is banned." Also fine. "Sale of food in a size that's convenient for a consumer who wants that much is banned, if they're overconsuming." That seems really not fine to me.
98: When I drive, it holds my torso too close to the seat and I can't see the TV screen.
I wouldn't say that I don't have body image issues, but less than the average American woman, I think, but I've noticed recently that my mental image of how big I am is about two or three inches too tall and maybe about 20 pounds heavier.
101: And it can make it harder to text.
I'm pissed that my kid has to sit in a car seat until he's 7, especially when the Freakanomics guy says its not necessary.
I do wear seatbelts but the point is that if someone were to write me a ticket for not wearing one I would have a righteous and powerful urge to kick them in the nuts.
Also, streetlights: what the fuck? I'll stop if it's dangerous, but don't order me around.
Has the car seat age-raising trend played out? Or are they going to keep going up?
One interesting thing about requiring older kids to be in car seats is that it makes it very difficult to have 3 kids close together without buying a giant car. Similarly, makes carpooling kids very difficult.
105: Nebraska passed the seatbelt law and there was a petition drive to get it repealed. This happened twice before finally people got the idea that billions in federal highway dollars were going to go away without it.
Also, streetlights: what the fuck? I'll stop if it's dangerous, but don't order me around.
If you're talking about on a bicycle then I totally agree. If someone's doing it wrong it'll be self correcting.
OT: John Edwards isn't a criminal.
At least when everyone was smoking they were all thin and sexy and sharp witted.
I recall the '70s, dimly, as a decade of polyester and corduroy in smoke-stained shades of brown and adults complaining about gas prices, rather than dinner dances and Philo Vance-esque banter.
Dude, gswift, no one, and I mean no one, in this state can drive. Protip: don't make left turns across traffic from the far right lane!
Ninety-something percent of the backlash against the proposed regulation, from the left at least, is because it's point of origin is Bloomberg, who's a dick and unequivocally pro-fascism.
It seems a bit odd that some states appear to allow kids in the front seat in a child seat if no other seats are available. Suppose you have a small car which can only fit 2 car seats in the back, but could fit 3 small kids with seat belts. Almost surely it's safer to have the 3 kids (say ages 3,5,7) in the back in seat belts than in car seats with one in the front. But yet it's the latter that appears to be the legal option.
I thought 5 and 7 year old kids can be in booster seats. Those might fit in smaller cars.
I kinda like that Bloomberg tries this sort of stuff. I'm not convinced that this is the right way to go about this, but I do think more little laws about things like smoking and eating unhealthily are worth trying out.
113: I am embarrassed by the frequency with which I have found myself on Bloomberg's side: Congestion pricing? Yes, please. Shame smokers and make their lives miserable and persecuted? Where do I sign up? Ban trans fats? Of course. Hunt the poor for sport? Well, okay.
Because the poor need an incentive to stay fit.
Dude, gswift, no one, and I mean no one, in this state can drive.
God, don't even get me started. And then they're all indignant if you pull them over. Me: "So, I couldn't help noticing you just caused a bunch of other drivers to have their lives flash before their eyes." Them: "WHAT!? Whatever, gotta fill your quota?"
The anti-smoking ad campaign was excellent, I thought. I hid behind couch cushions when they came on, or flipped away from them, but they had a real impact. Not quite so sure about the 'pound of bloody animal fat scooped into a Big Gulp cup' anti-soda ads, but maybe those were a good idea too. Generally, I agree that thoughtful, pragmatic regulatory tweaking is a good thing.
This particular one rubs me strongly the wrong way though -- it feels like power-hungry, intrusive messing with people. I'm not successfully articulating the principled difference between this and a tweak I wouldn't mind, but I think if I mull it over long enough, I'll be able to find one.
Protip: don't make left turns across traffic from the far right lane!
See, when someone does this in Boston, I don't assume they don't know how to drive, I just assume they're an asshole.
110: He embarrassed Saint Elizabeth, hence must burn.
This is another in a long series of examples of the folly of making icons of politicians' spouses and children.
115: Three booster seats in the back seat of a small car still sucks. Actually, maybe I'm projecting since Mara and Alex needed the full boosters with backs, but it was a huge annoyance. (Maybe especially when other kids were getting dropped off at school from the back of pickup trucks, but I'm pro-booster seat for safety and just didn't like the actual buckling experience.)
117: hunting for sport sounds pretty elitist. I guess I'd be on board with hunting the poor for the pot, though poor people are often higher in fat than is healthy.
The last car crash I saw was apparently because of brake failure. I assumed it was just incredibly stupid driving because we get a lot of that. It's still probably partially stupid driving as cars have the hand brake right there.
Also, you know what goes great with human flesh? 44 ozs. of Cherry Coke, that's what. I hate it when the regulatory apparatus becomes self-defeating.
In Washington state 12 year olds need to be in the back seat if practical. I don't understand why being under 12 is relevant there. Being in the back seat is safer than the passenger seat no matter what age you are, there's nothing special about being 12.
117: There's a lot of little stuff where I think he's fine -- like you said, congestion pricing is very sensible, he's done great things for bike infrastructure. And I generally approve of the boring technocratic approach; there was some emergency, maybe Irene? where I was watching him droning on with sensible advice and encouraging everyone to go on about their business because mostly it was going to be just fine, where I thought he was great -- I don't want you to inspire me, I just want the subways to run.
127: Airbags kill short, light people. The rule I thought was applicable was 100lbs for the front seat, but that's pretty close to 12 for a lot of kids.
I just want the subways to run
See? Liberal fascism.
127: Children become unsympathic teens at 13.
115: Here is a rundown of safety seat laws by state. Apparently I broke the law on the other side of the river by taking Mara and her sister and cousins to the museum by letting the two 6-year-olds wear seat belts and one of them sit in the front seat. I know that having a kid in the front seat is not ideal, but fuck, maybe I should just buy a van I guess. Or at least more booster seats.
120.2: I'm swinging back and forth on this one. I think it requires a re-conceptualization of food/drink (or some kinds of food/drink at least) to not seem objectionable. And that re-conceptualization is probably a good one--toxic substances of which you need a relatively small quantity to thrive.
Or continue rebelling against the fascist safety seat regime!
I've driven in Boston! No comparison. Boston is predictably assholish. Here is oblivious. I'll take predictable any day.
Also, you know what goes great with human flesh? 44 ozs. of Cherry Coke, that's what.
OK, I am now firmly convinced that Von Wafer is not in fact Hannibal Lecter.
132: We should probably get a booster seat. We're not going to get buy with a car seat until he's 8.
Has the lunch with your (distant, possibly critical) old friend happened? When I meet people like that again after a long absence, I usually feel like crap for awhile. Comparisons are odorous.
Going to meet her for lunch in about 15 minutes, actually! Will report back.
22: My Dawn Simulator (a rheostat with a timer) requires an incandescent bulb. The current generation of dawn simulators won't work with fluorescent bulbs. That thing makes it possible for me to make it through the winter. If they're able to make one that works with a fluorescent bulb, then I wouldn't care if I couldn't buy incandescent bulbs. Until then, I'd be pissed.
The problem I've had with the fluorescent bulbs is that, in practice, they burn out much faster.
137: I have some sort of transition seat for Mara, where right now it has a back and armrests but you can take off the armrests when she's too tall for them and then take off the back when she's ready for a plain booster. She's tall enough for a booster now, I think, but I'm not going to take the seat apart unless or until she complains.
140: That's my wife's attitude about the car seat/booster transition. I think he is complaining except that he's just complaining about long car trips.
A little googling suggests that no child over the age of 9 has been killed by a passenger air bag. Furthermore, there's increased risk of injury from airbags for short adults (under 5'3") and tall adults (over 5'11").
Finally, the airbag factor is insignificant relative to the huge amount safer that the back seat is than the front seat. The front seats have risk coefficients of 100 and 101, while the back seats have risk coefficients of 74, 62, and 73. The passenger seat just isn't safe at any age, almost nothing changes at 12.
hunting the poor for the pot
How can you tell which ones are holding?
143: Geraldo says the ones in hoodies.
142: That'll teach me to pontificate without googling* -- I had the belief that the airbag risk was significant and strongly size-linked.
_____
*A filthy lie. Nothing will.
To the OP, nothing useful to say. Most closely related personal attitude: My self-image issues are with attitudes and abilities. I like to think of myself as capable of effective action always and also coordinating others with a few well placed words. In fact I fear that I am a sullen loner with an occasional good idea, which I am not capable of recognizing among the less good ones.
74: Which ones are you using? I can't find any that play well at all with my dimmer.
147: I have no idea. It's a lamp with a dimmer, if that matters.
I mean it is true that the risk is size-linked. It's just that the risk is so low to begin with. Furthermore, the link is stronger for the *driver* because short drivers sit close to the steering wheel.
Sitting in the passenger seat is estimated to have resulted in 5K deaths per year, while airbags have killed an estimated 115 people (66 of them children) in roughly their first *decade* of use. Airbag caused deaths are a rounding error in front seat death.
When I meet people like that again after a long absence, I usually feel like crap for awhile
Interacting with a variety of folks from my past over the weekend reminded me that most people do not respond with reciprocally to my self-deprecating humor. (But nor do they always appreciate barbs directed at them that are not in accord with their current self-image.)
139: there is not (never was) a ban on incandescent bulbs. Just on low efficiency bulbs.
"Sale of food in a size that's convenient for a consumer who wants that much is banned, if they're overconsuming." That seems really not fine to me.
So convenience is the new inactivity?
Our wants are not wholly our own when it comes to industrial food products: they're the product of generations of careful manipulation by business. (16 ounces would itself once have been a double-portion.) I think society has every right to try to exert countervailing pressure.
Certainly the Bloomberg proposal's impact would be dwarfed by that of ending all the government policies fostering agricultural overproduction, but I think the one would set an important precedent toward the other.
150. Yeah, safest to assume that everyone wants bland good cheer always until they show otherwise.
So convenience is the new inactivity?
Not so much. I'm arguing that this regulation is intrusive chickenshit, not that it's unconstitutional. Confusing the two categories of 'constitutional' and 'a good idea' is a serious mental error.
there was some emergency, maybe Irene? where I was watching him droning on with sensible advice and encouraging everyone to go on about their business because mostly it was going to be just fine, where I thought he was great
Bloomberg put me under mandatory evacuation from an apartment that was never in any danger, and was clearly not going to be in any danger. When that happened, it got me seething with libertarian rage. And I'm not generally one who gets off on libertarian rage.
Not so much. I'm arguing that this regulation is intrusive chickenshit, not that it's unconstitutional. Confusing the two categories of 'constitutional' and 'a good idea' is a serious mental error.
That was mostly an attempt at one of your human "quips".
What I'm saying is that you're drawing a distinction that doesn't seem to have a clear grounding other than vague feelings about intrusiveness.
Whoops. I was praising his tone, rather than his actions, which didn't affect me negatively. So he still sucks.
159: I did. Drove to our then-yet-to-be-sold house in Maryland. Towards the storm, just to spite Bloomberg.
160: Feelings of intrusiveness can be important -- the point of government regulation is to keep people safer and improve their lives, not harass them. I think there is a principled distinction to be made here, although I haven't formulated it clearly yet.
Well, let me know when you do. I agree that feelings of intrusiveness can be indicative of a problem, but so far it looks to me like the novelty factor at work.
the point of government regulation is to keep people safer and improve their lives, not harass them.
Not everybody has a family to do that.
Not too long ago, I would have been quite bothered by Bloomberg's heavy-handed antics. However, after years of extensive engagement with libertarians on the internet, I'm not at all troubled by it. People will get healthier. Good for him.
People will start to sell giant glasses of unsweet tea and let you dump in as much syrup as you want.
People will start to sell giant glasses of unsweet tea and let you dump in as much syrup as you want.
After people realize how much syrup is necessary to get the taste, this might completely kill off the sugary drinks market.
Oh, that's interesting. Is this going to fuck with giant sweetened coffee drinks? Because that will piss people all the way off, and while I still think it's intrusive chickenshit, I'm going to be much more amused at irate people who can't get their 20 oz mochachino with whipped cream than at annoyed soda drinkers.
OTOH, if it doesn't hit coffee-bar drinks, then I think it's explicitly classist; let's hassle fat poor people because they're gross, but I need my giant latte with caramel syrup.
Maybe if somebody gets confused about the difference between simple syrup and pancake syrup.
Is this going to fuck with giant sweetened coffee drinks?
That would be fun.
Just googled, and it doesn't hit milk-based drinks. You can drink as many calories as you like, as long as your tastes are elevated enough and your budget allows for Starbucks.
169.2: I was thinking that maybe couple this with some other ban which differentially affected the wealthy. No personal residences greater than x sq. ft. No cars bigger than Y.
What about coffee drinks with no milk? A soy latte or something.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
And that's sort of helps get at why I think it's intrusive chickenshit. Once you get into this sort of micromanagement, you're picking and choosing among lifestyles in a way that's very difficult to do evenhandedly. I'd accept that the distinction wasn't meant to be classist (if someone worked real hard at convincing me), but a regulation that encourages me to look contemptuously down on soda drinkers while the whipped cream from my Venti Mochachocolatte oozes swinishly down my jowls doesn't do the project of government treating us all equally any good.
I actually thought coffee drinks came under it (having some milk in it does not make it a dairy-based drink). But to LB's general point:
In between sips of what appears to be a venti (20 ounce) Starbucks coffee, MSNBC's "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski defended New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposed ban on sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces (which includes some coffee) as a "great idea."
I, too, have mixed feelings about the Bloomberg thing. My knee jerks in LB's direction, but I really, really want to teach and remind people how bad that shit is for you. Maybe there's a labeling answer?
First they came for the cigarettes, and I didn't speak out because I didn't smoke.
Then they came for the transfats and I didn't speak out because, eew, gross.
Then they came for the Big Gulps, and I didn't speak out because that shit is nasty.
Then they came for the sweetened coffee but not the frappuccinos, which sends mixed messages.
Then they came for the Red Vines, and I said, "To the barricades!"
Yeah, I do agree that soda is the devil, nutritionally. I'm very relaxed with the kids about sweets, but I won't have soda in the house. Diet, regular -- if you're thirsty, drink water. If you want caffeine, drink coffee. If you want something sweet, learn to chew.
176: It's pretty clearly intrusive chickenshit--I guess the one reason it might not be designed to be as classist as it seems is that the soda ban gets at the main source of sugar for kids and teens, who are (I guess?) less likely to suck down calories from coffee drinks. So a soda ban but not a sugar-laden coffee drink ban might make sense. It'd still be--literally--paternalistic but maybe it takes some of the class edge off things.
On the other hand, the ban doesn't cover vending machines (right?), so kids can still get their sodas there. Maybe that means it's not so effective after all. Try thinking of this as just a generalization of the ban on selling sodas on high school campuses (which I can fully get behind).
Minivet is 100% right here, so I will defer all commenting to him.
We know why people get fat -- it is eating too much food, especially grains and sugars and processed foods. Our current food supply system in the US is almost entirely focused on supporting the producers of these foods without regard to health. It is psychologically extraordinarily difficult and expensive (especially when convenience is factored in) to stop eating these foods. So of course people are overweight, to the point of public health crisis, and we'll need a lot more steps like Bloomberg's if we're ever going to change things.
Because it does not apply to convenience stores, Big Gulps appear to be safe for the time being. On the subject of Big Gulps, this 1987 commercial from its introduction is kind of interesting.
Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble
when you're perfect in every way.
I can't wait to look in the mirror
'cause I get better looking each day.
To know me is to love me
I must be a hell of a man.
Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble
but I'm doing the best that I can.
181: I'm coming to like the "Modern food is basically a poison, but one that we require a small amount of to survive." formulation.
I'm torn on the regulation, in part because I think it's unlikely to do more than annoy people, but I'm convinced that people are upset mostly because it is new and Minivet's point is really important. It's not as if there's some magical soda fountain on the veldt that spews out 32 oz. portions. Decisions to sell those were made by large corporations who have a lot of research aimed at getting people to spend money on soda. It would be nice if there were something as big and powerful having the consumers' back once in a while.
I also agree with Blume that it's unlikely that most people are consciously thinking to buy 32 oz of Coke. They're buying the largest, most cost-efficient size. And chances are, they won't buy two, but they will be able to if they really, really want to. (I suspect people weren't dying of thirst before the advent of 72 oz drinking cups.)
(Perhaps I'm an outlier, but sugary drinks hold no appeal for me. Sometimes I want a can of Coke, so I drink half of it.)
Because it does not apply to convenience stores, Big Gulps appear to be safe
I know, but "Big Gulp" is just so poetic that I couldn't resist.
176: to look contemptuously down on soda drinkers while the whipped cream from my Venti Mochachocolatte oozes swinishly down my jowls
Ha! 177 was basically in response to 172; just now noticed the specificity with respect to 176.
Hey LB, I just sent something to your gmail account. Do you check that anymore? Can you check it now?
My initial reaction was against this ban, but I have come around to being somewhat in favor of it.
Nobody is banning the drinking of large drinks, they are banning the selling of large drinks by certain licensed businesses. Part of the public interest in business licensing is making sure the businesses abide by various rules associated with public health, and this is one of those rules.
Nothing there from you. Lizardbreath atsymbol blogname dotcom forwards to it, or if you've got the wrong gmail address it's Threeletternickname.lastnamewithouttheinternalhyphen@gmail.com.
Point on the classism. Though coffee-based drinks don't come in nearly as large sizes.
I was checking nutrition out of curiosity - basic lattes from Starbucks have much fewer grams of sugar per ounce than Coke, but once you get up to white chocolate mocha with whipped cream, you're comparable. Interestingly, white chocolate mocha has twice the sugar of regular mocha.
Ah, but you did send something to my hotmail account. I got it.
Big Gulp should be the informal name for the thrill-seeking industry: skydiving, bungee jumping, zip-lining, what have you.
84: Of course buying larger drinks doesn't actually save money. It results in consumers spending more money, stores getting larger profits, and consumers getting fatter. It really is a trick. (With the caveat that yes you could actually save money buy splitting large drinks among several people.)
Allowing 20 oz coffee-milk drinks isn't necessarily classicism because the same rule that allows that also allows large McDonald's milkshakes. Assuming that what goes into milkshakes can be categorized as "milk".
They are called shakes for a reason.
That reason being the complete lack of milk.
fewer grams of sugar per ounce than Coke
I haven't checked, but did you compare calories per ounce too? There's nothing calorific in a Coke but sugar, but a latte has fat and protein as well.
I love the formatting in 191, but I'm glad that not all comments look like that.
Next you are going to tell me Shamrock Shakes aren't made with real shamrocks.
84: Of course buying larger drinks doesn't actually save money. It results in consumers spending more money, stores getting larger profits, and consumers getting fatter. It really is a trick. (With the caveat that yes you could actually save money buy splitting large drinks among several people.)
I do like to buy the giganto iced coffee at Panera, and it lasts me two days.
I don't get iced coffee at all and I assume it is just a joke somebody played on America.
Chiming in to support the ban, for the reasons people listed. I don't believe people truly want that much soda; they just default to what is available. If they do want it, it is a want created by business and advertising. And it is foul stuff, that no one should drink that much of.
If the ban goes through, people will grumble, then adjust and stop noticing, and obese soda drinkers will drop a pound or two, or gain less per year. Good for them, and in the city's interest.
You know who would be an interesting person to hear from on this? T-N Coates. He's written about switching eating habits and doing it from the shock of encountering (rich, white) people in Aspen who sniffed mint for dessert (or some such) rather than ordering cake. He's worked to lose a bunch of weight and would probably have a good perspective on the balance between regulating people and getting rid of soda.
Iced coffee is marvelous, but the trick is to cold-brew it in a French press. If you like coffee and haven't tried the cold-brew, you are missing out.
Followup to 199: I tried to check, and there are so many options I got confused. But the crossover on calories where S'Bux is worse than Coke is somewhere right around an unsweetened fullfat latte or cappuchino -- non-fat or lowfat milk brings it down again, and sweet stuff brings it back up.
206.1 is a good illustration of what is wrong with much of the support for the ban. The argument is completely unfalsifiable (i.e. there is no possible evidence that could refute that argument even if it were wrong). It doesn't just say to somebody that they are being stupid, it says you're being so stupid that I don't need to listen to you about what you want for yourself.
This is all nit-picking at small (alleged) improvements. How about getting down to the nitty-gritty and start implanting contraceptives in people on welfare, with criminal records, or unemployed for more than a year?
Is a French press analogous to a vaporizer?
There's nothing calorific in a Coke but sugar, but a latte has fat and protein as well.
Of course, there's the argument that it's precisely this that makes the coffee drink better for you. The fat will make you feel more full in a way that just sugar water won't.
sugary drinks hold no appeal for me
They don't hold much appeal for me, for which I bless my mother on a regular basis. (You go, LB!) We never had it in the house growing up and I never developed more than an occasional taste for it.
(Though I do love carbonated drinks and mix fruit juice with seltzer. What is it about carbonation that makes it seem so especially thirst-quenching?)
210: Infibulation is cheaper than birth control.
That's an argument, but I think it's still in the possible-but-uncertain category. What I've read goes back and forth between 'liquid sugar doesn't satiate you' and 'liquid calories don't satiate you regardless'.
215 to 212.
213: I broke down and bought the SodaStream over my better moral judgment, and I love it so much. I've never had enough seltzer before.
'liquid calories don't satiate you regardless'
My daily intake of kefir suggests otherwise. Instead of breakfast and lunch most days I just down a jug of Lifeway.
I don't believe people truly want that much soda; they just default to what is available.
Oh, I definitely want that much soda; large quantities are preferable to small quantities. I'll be annoyed when only small quantities are available.
But I'll get over it. Even though its unfair to me, because I only drink diet soda.
Bloomberg's rule doesn't hit diet soda.
I guess the milk content (or milk substitute, so the soy latte in 174 would be OK) has to be >51% to not be covered (this is where I reveal that I had no idea that lattes were predominantly milk--yes, yes, I know, the name). Frappuccinos apparently don't make the cut which leads to this article. "Frappuccinos are what makes the summer the summer. Without them, life would suck."
LB has clearly never drunk a glass of pork fat.
'liquid calories don't satiate you regardless'
This doesn't make sense to me. A drink with fats will be more likely to make you feel fuller.
Just put birth control directly into all soda. Too much soda = no babies.
220: Although a lot of the volume has to be ice -- I wonder if it'd make the cut if they sold you the non-ice portion in a small cup, and handed you a big cup of slush to dump the sweetened coffee-milk over.
The argument is completely unfalsifiable
True, but there are also solid cases to be made that it is right. I can't make them with good proof, but we do know that people were happy with small portion sizes three decades ago; that portion sizes have gone up with ag grain supports, heavy advertising and obesity.
Unfalsifiable means you can't construct scientific proof. But really fucking plausible, with the pieces well demonstrated, is good enough for real world purposes.
How about getting down to the nitty-gritty and start implanting contraceptives in people on welfare, with criminal records, or unemployed for more than a year?
I bet you won't have to look far to find someone who is in favor of all of these things, but thinks that Bloomberg's rules are a horrific government intrusion.
222: What I'm remembering (with my usual lack of claim to accuracy) is that people generally don't treat any kind of beverage as a food substitute; they eat the same amount of solid food whatever they drink. You might feel fuller immediately after a latte than after a same-calorie Coke, but I think there might not be any evidence that you're likely to eat less in the rest of the day because of it.
Bloomberg's rule doesn't hit diet soda.
It does, actually. In two ways:
1) When fast food joints hand out cups for the soda fountain, they are going to be handing out the same cup whether you order diet or regular. They aren't going to give you a bigger cup if you promise to get diet. Its not going to happen.
2) The ban on > 16oz bottles doesn't distinguish between diet and regular sodas, which is going to hit me right in my precious, 20 oz bottle of Diet Coke.
Does someone (OK, Knecht) have a quick explanation for why soda portion sizes are generally so much smaller outside the US? Tradition, lack of HFCS subsidies, marketing, what? Most of the world does just fine without a 32oz cup of soda at restaurants.
I broke down and bought the SodaStream over my better moral judgment
I bought one before I knew they were evil, so I didn't have to make that decision, though I suppose by replacing the canisters I am. But, you know, the environment and plastic bottles and fuel to transport them and stuff.
I got the SodaStream for my sweetheart, and he absolutely loves it. I love that we're not going through plastic bottles like crazy. And occasionally I love the seltzer.
You might feel fuller immediately after a latte than after a same-calorie Coke, but I think there might not be any evidence that you're likely to eat less in the rest of the day because of it.
I think the research you're recalling is about sugary drinks, and that things are different when we're talking about fats.
Iced coffee is marvelous, but the trick is to cold-brew it in a French press. If you like coffee and haven't tried the cold-brew, you are missing out.
We've had this conversation several times before, but this is correct. Good iced coffee isn't just regular coffee poured over ice; it's cold water and grounds refrigerated overnight.
If you don't have a French press, you can just make it in a jar and strain the grounds through a regular coffee filter when you pour it out. If you put sugar in your regular coffee, put sugar in the iced, though you'll probably want less.
I haven't checked, but did you compare calories per ounce too? There's nothing calorific in a Coke but sugar, but a latte has fat and protein as well.
Good point. I checked what the Weight Watchers points were (theoretically putting it all together more meaningfully, based on fat, carbs, fiber, and protein), and a skim latte has significantly fewer points/oz than a Coke, but a whole-milk latte is comparable.
If you put sugar in your regular coffee, put sugar in the iced, though you'll probably want less.
I am just the opposite. No sugar in hot coffee, but I could put loads in iced. (I usually restrain myself.)
I bet you won't have to look far to find someone who is in favor of all of these things, but thinks that Bloomberg's rules are a horrific government intrusion.
There is someone on Huffington Post who is against the new rule but supported Bloomberg's previous move to ban the purchase of soda with food stamps.
225: If somebody showed you proof that they really did (behind the veil of ignorance) want a huge fucking soda, would you withdraw your support? My point isn't that you can't support the idea that the demand for huge sodas is artificial to some extent, it's that you have explicitly stated that you will not consider the idea that somebody who disagrees with you on this knows their own preferences. That is, to me at least, much more dictatorial than saying to somebody, "I know you hate it but I have the votes to make you do it my way."
I usually restrain myself.
Oh, really, Blumeberg? 'Cause we just might come check.
206.3: TNC seems very nice, but, notwithstanding his unusual (for the Atalantamatic, at least) background, he is not what I would call a cataract of heterodoxy. His voice would fall well within the capabilities of a crueler Unfoggetariat intent on producing parodies of prominent bloggers.
I don't think we've heard nearly enough about Megan's sweetheart. Let's have some telling anecdotes or endearing traits or embarrassing secrets exposed ruthlessly to the light of day.
what I would call a cataract of heterodoxy
What would you call a cataract of heterodoxy? And why? And have you ever done so?
Figuring out whether or not people "really" want what they say they want is a mug's game. There is good reason in this case to believe both that there's consumer demand for larger portion sizes and that companies pushing larger portion sizes are deftly exploiting for profit a psychological human impulse, that the result is more overweight people, and that smaller soda drink sizes would not cause much of a loss, psychological or otherwise. "[some] people will grumble, then adjust and stop noticing, and obese soda drinkers will drop a pound or two, or gain less per year" as Megan says.
If they do want it, it is a want created by business and advertising.
For which wants is this not true?
For which wants is this not true?
Sex?
243: Telling people that you're doing what they really want to do if they understood themselves as well as you understood them, is a very good way to find yourself the first against the wall when the hypoglycemic revolution hits.
Does New York have fast food restaurants that hand you empty cups that you fill at a station? I don't think I've seen that very often here. And also, where besides bodegas do people buy bottles of soda?
244, 245: No one advertises the Mineshaft.
206 and 243 are right.
If you have climbed out of Plato's Cave and can see, clearly and unhindered, your true desire for a quart of soda, surely you can brave the inconvenience of buying two regular-sized ones.
That's a real twisting of the Allegory of the Cave. The banning-big-soda people are the ones claiming objective knowledge beyond the sight of mere mortal beverage consumers.
242: Slavoj Žižek? Not useful heterodoxy, for the most part, but he certainly churns it out.
247: Lots of bodegas serve sandwiches, which I think makes them restaurants who can't sell big drinks. It may turn into an advantage for the really little no-food-prepared-on-the-premises-bodegas.
Moby, would you apply your argument to tobacco? Unlimited advertising and marketing of cocaine? Riding helmet-free on motorcycles? Just want to see how far you're willing to go down libertarian lane.
Big Soda is subsidized behind the scenes by Big Dialysis Center.
Does New York have fast food restaurants that hand you empty cups that you fill at a station?
There is a Subway on Varick Street in SoHo that does, plus any number of places in the outer boroughs.
If you have climbed out of Plato's Cave and can see, clearly and unhindered, your true desire for a quart of soda, surely you can brave the inconvenience of buying two regular-sized ones.
When the doors of perception are cleansed, the proletariat will see the world as it truly is: full of corn syrup and sodium and stuck-up people who think they're better 'n you and the cast of [memory fails to provide a suitably trashy reality television show about obese women screaming at one another].
Objective knowledge in the form of a plausible big picture about portion sizes, advertising, crop supports and obesity.
Besides that, people's "wants" change by the minute. They intensely want some soda, then they want to not feel gross and over-sugared/caffeinated, then they want to not be fat. They have lots of changing contradictory wants.
253: I'm not opposed to the ban on large sizes per se (except that it is just stupid pointless nagging given the wave of junk food). I'm opposed to telling people you know what they really want. You can, if you have scientific evidence, tell them what is good for them.
257: Notice how you use "they" as if you were somehow outside the human condition like some kind of heaven-sent billionaire politician genius instead of some person buying a sandwich for lunch.
My local coffee shop sometimes does not have the iced coffee ready when I go in, and so they make me iced americanos, which are awesome.
I'm opposed to telling people you know what they really want. You can, if you have scientific evidence, tell them what is good for them.
Ah. I guess I'm on board with that. I do agree that this is a situation where people are unlikely to miss the good old days of 32oz restaurant soda sizes much.
Besides that, people's "wants" change by the minute. They intensely want some soda, then they want to not feel gross and over-sugared/caffeinated, then they want to not be fat. They have lots of changing contradictory wants.
Yes.
The banning-big-soda people are the ones claiming objective knowledge beyond the sight of mere mortal beverage consumers.
No, we fucking aren't. The signs are all around us - not ultra-scientifically objective, but plenty for policy - that people overconsume because the environment makes it easy to. (What is your story explaining why portions have changed over the years?) To counteract this, we can make it slightly more inconvenient/expensive to overconsume. It is not "poor ignorant masses", it's completely in line with what regulation is all about.
Nobody tried to tell smokers, "You don't really want to smoke."* They straight-up said we don't care what you want, it's bad.
*Smokers going through nicotine withdrawl might have murdered someone saying that.
245: Traditionally I think this is where we start to quibble over the distinction between a want and a need.
Also over the definition of "advertising" (and maybe "business").
Suggesting that I don't identify with the regulated community? But that's an inescapable rhetorical attack, because if I said "we" or said that I'd welcome the same regulations here, I'd get accused of letting the rich and poor both sleep under bridges.
Besides which, I am a civil servant, although not directly a regulator. Of course I believe in an expansive role for government.
I think there's a significant amount of research that shows that people's preferences for amounts and kinds of food and drink is highly context dependent. So I don't think you have to say "You don't really want that giant soda", but "If circumstances were different, you wouldn't want that giant soda."
262: It may be that, but it may also just be that people have always wanted to consume as much sweets as they can afford but have never been able to afford as much.
They straight-up said we don't care what you want, it's bad.
"And, for wanting it, you are bad. Also weak. Probably ugly. Women/Men don't like you. Really, you're everything America hates."
ARE YOU PEOPLE SAYING SUPPLY CREATES DEMAND?
THAT IS SO PATERNALISTIC AND/OR EUGENICIST
I'm opposed to telling people you know what they really want. You can, if you have scientific evidence, tell them what is good for them.
I think you are right most of the time, but you can go too far with it. Sometimes it is easier, for instance, for an outsider to recognize that one person is smitten by another. (In college I once drove 24 hours straight by myself to see a woman for the weekend. It was only when I looked at my behavior from an outside perspective that I realized how in love I was.)
So yeah, most of the time people are the best judge of their own desires, but not always. Of course, finding out what people really want is a matter of looking at how they act, not at what is good for them.
Back on the diet soda versus water thing (articles in 46 and 47). My observation of my behavior* is that when I'm drinking a lot of water** rather than diet soda I am also eating better. But I really do not know think there is a causal relationship in either direction, but rather both are manifestations of more fundamental changes in managing my oral desires.
*I'm thinking of donating my life to sociology since my dietary behavior so stupidly tracks prevalent societal trends. I find it a bit infantilizing.
**And when I do, it is super-size water in big Five Guys cups ....
CAPITALISM CREATES DEMAND. THAT'S THE SUBTERRANEAN CUE OF THE CATBUS IN My Neighbor Totoro. IT'S ALL IN PICO DELLA MIRANDOLA'S SUPPRESSED MSS. ON THE PRE-MEDICI BANK OF THE SUBTLE BODY. YOU PEOPLE DON'T APPRECIATE ME.
For which wants is this not true?
Sex?
Desires are either natural and necessary, like eating and drinking; natural and not necessary, such as mating with a female; or else neither natural nor necessary, like virtually all human ones, which are entirely superfluous and artificial. Nature needs wonderfully little to be satisfied and leaves little indeed for us to desire. The activities of our kitchens are not Nature's ordinance. Stoics say that a man could feed himself on one olive a day. The choiceness of our wines owes nothing to Nature's teachings, any more than do the refinements we load on to our sexual appetites:
——neque illa Magno prognatum deposcit consule cunnum. — HOR. Ser. i. Sat. ii. 30.
I just read that the FDA said no to a request by the Culinary Death Industry to change the name of high fructose corn syrup to "corn sugar." Really, why not go for the gusto and change it to "Vitamin C"?
(I'm on comment 48. This seems likely to have been mentioned. It's hard coming to a thread late!)
Not read the whole thread, but re: kids and airbags.
Most British cars have the option of turning the passenger side airbag off when you have a child-seat or booster seat fitted. On my car you insert the key into a slot beside the steering wheel and turn the airbag off.
re: lightbulbs
People who do enlarging with film are a bit up shit creek in the EU, as incandescent bulbs are being phased out, and you can't use the low-energy alternatives. A minority interest, but still.
Someone who's a real nutritionist want to step in here?
You know nothing of my work.
Non-fat lattes are supposed to be healthy--caffeine in small quantities appears to be good for you, and you get protein and calcium.
You know nothing of my name.
I don't even think it particularly has to be small quantities of caffeine, either. The bullshit attack on caffeine [in non-extreme quantities] by the universal-temperance movement isn't based on any science.
Lots of bodegas serve sandwiches, which I think makes them restaurants who can't sell big drinks.
Would that allow be true of 7-11, which is reportedly planning to open 100 new stores in NYC?
Nobody tried to tell smokers, "You don't really want to smoke."* They straight-up said we don't care what you want, it's bad.
That is the primary justification for this policy too. The discussion about whether people really want the large sizes is a sidetrack at best.
Speaking of beverages, the fancy vegetable juices that one sees yoga babes drinking all the time are really expensive.*
* Because one is a pretentious fop, one cannot read or link to New York's "Grub Street" blog without thinking of the "Gropecunt Street/Lane" origins of the name.
The signs are all around us - not ultra-scientifically objective, but plenty for policy - that people overconsume because the environment makes it easy to.
I over consume because I am a pig. Please don't deny me that agency. The environment making it easier is not the cause, though it is an enabler.
Please don't deny me that agency.
Would a bureau do? How about a commission?
283: Revealed preferences suggest that most people here really like sidetracks.
The bullshit attack on caffeine [in non-extreme quantities] by the universal-temperance movement isn't based on any science.
Easy, now. You seem a little on edge there, ttaM.
The ban is such total bullshit. People eat and drink high-calorie food because they're hungry; and they choose cheap, low-nutrition options because they're poor. The solution is not to make the low-nutrition options less cheap, it's to make high-nutrition options less expensive, or to make people less poor.
Also, I happen to genuinely genuinely love enormous quantities of soda, and would even in the absence of marketing or commercials or the existence of PepsiFritoLayHennessyNewsCorp. Now I guess I'll go back to filling a mixing bowl with water, corn syrup, food dye and baking soda. It tastes awful and it's a lot of work.
283: Good point. The part about desires for food and portion sizes being context-dependent goes towards pointing out that if the ban goes through, soda drinkers won't be jonesing like cigarette smokers. They'll be slightly bummed (perhaps even enough to buy two drinks!) and then not mind.
284: That tumeric-n-mint juice one sees in all the health food stores in Manhattan is super expensive but sooooo goood.
They'll be slightly bummed (perhaps even enough to buy two drinks!) and then not mind.
If that is all the justification we need, why not just poke a hole in the bottom of every other cup sold.
People eat and drink high-calorie food because they're hungry
I'm going to call bullshit on people drinking soda because they're hungry.
I was going to say the same thing.
And lots of people -- rich and poor -- routinely keep eating once they've sated their hunger.
I used to drink four loko because I was hungry. Now I just suffer.
Also, people do make their own sweetened beverages at home all the time. It's called lemonade, and I make myself a giant glass* once a month or so.
*Granted, not a 32-oz giant glass.
re: the OP
I 'suffer' from whatever the opposite of body dysmorphia is. I mean, objectively I know I'm overweight and have a bit of a gut, and my face is heavier than it once was. But when I look in the mirror I still look, to myself, like me. Just a slightly heavier schlubbier me. Whenever I see photos though I'm always shocked, as half the time I look unrecognisable. Much fatter, older and balder than my mental self-image [which isn't exactly of myself as a muscular adonis, anyway].
I have some ginger and lime infused Lyle's in the fridge right now. It would probably make excellent lemonade, but I put it in gin.
Montaigne wins the thread. Montaigne wins all the threads.
299.2: I actually do think that the fact that I tend to drink water in 32-oz. cups is a manifestation of my (somewhat societal-representative) overall attitudinal issues towards consumption by mouth.
The solution is not to make the low-nutrition options less cheap, it's to make high-nutrition options less expensive, or to make people less poor.
This, of course, has a lot of truth and is far more important. High-nutrition options need to be more accessible as well: grocery stores in every neighborhood with decent produce and more home ec classes on making meals at home quickly and cheaply.
Maybe Michelle Obama can lobby for a nutrition section to be included in NCLB testing so schools will be forced to teach it. Actually, I kind of like that idea.
After working out what 32 oz is in proper measurements, holy fuck! [Not re: water, but other beverages] That's mega-beer-stein sized.
Vaguely on topic if you think about it, I found the piece itself pretty unreadable, but liked the headline, "Artisanal, Reluctant Branding Pioneer, Dies at Age 474".
re: 304.last
The problem with that is there isn't universal agreement about good nutrition, and not just from Halford. Lots of the diet/nutrition industry has been captured by people with daft views.
Re 291, it's very generous of Megan to agree to appear here in the role of the cartoon of a banally evil government bureaucrat/condescending liberal. Other people's desires are illegitimate and will soon adjust to the new order. Which is why Megan will surely embrace her reassignment to Menomonie, Wisconsin to serve the social good of water mangaement there. Sheonly believes herself to adore California becuase of artificial conditions of proximity and convenience, and any disappointment she feels will son dissapate. Of course, Menomonie does have a rather agressive noise ordinance...
Lots of the diet/nutrition industry has been captured by people with daft views.
And they aren't even the entertaining kind of daft like the guys who invented breakfast cereal.
309: Hey, remember T. Coraghessan Boyle? Neither does anybody else!
Judging by some middle part of this thread, the Bloomberg edict runs the risk of generating a thoroughly Mormon beverage taxonomy.
p.s. what's wrong with SodaStream?
311.2: It carbonates by using the livers of force-fed geese.
The ban itself rubs me the wrong way because it singles out drinks as sugar delivery systems pretty much arbitrarily, and while it isn't necessarily classist (plenty of fat suburban people drive around with giant cups all day), it certainly seems to resonate as "those people with their giant sodas." I think it's bad politics/policy, about at the level of banning Happy Meals.
NYC's requirement of public universal calorie disclosures on the other hand? Brilliant. In part because it doesn't assume that it knows what consumers' desire or priorities are or should be. It just denies restaurants, bakeries, etc the veil of ignorance.
I never read T. Coraghessan Boyle but I assumed I wouldn't like him because for a while every other piece of fiction the New Yorker printed was by him and their fiction tends to be rotten.* I think I maybe also respond badly to people going by [First Initial] Name Lastname.
*Except when it's by Lorrie Moore.
314: In its defense, the NYer used to publish Borges.
Road to Wellville was great. Many of the short stories were pretty good also, if you can tolerate a clever showoff.
NYC's requirement of public universal calorie disclosures on the other hand? Brilliant. In part because it doesn't assume that it knows what consumers' desire or priorities are or should be. It just denies restaurants, bakeries, etc the veil of ignorance.
Here's how well that program is working. If there's anything we should be learning from recent decades' experience, it's that transparency doesn't inherently lead to change.
317: His friends called him "J."
what 32 oz is in proper measurements
Almost a liter!
311.2 It's manufactured in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank.
Or less than 1/2 of the amount of beer that it takes to get to DUI levels.
OMG my friend is doing a juice cleanse. 6 pints of juice a day for 4 days. I wonder if Bloomberg would permit this if he knew.
Is that one of those things where you have nothing but juice? And "juice" isn't slang for steroids here?
What about regulation to make 10 or 12 oz portions available? I could get behind that. Proportional pricing would be even better.
What about regulation to make 10 or 12 oz portions available? I could get behind that. Proportional pricing would be even better.
325: The juice cut off is 70%. I assume hers are higher than that.
319.2 is similar the reason I think calls for some minor beverage tax to get people to drink less soda is kind of pointless. Feel-good neo-liberal programs like that only move the needle a little bit. People either adjust, or don't really pay that much attention to calories and/or prices. I think banning large portion sizes is likely to be significantly more effective.
People say the same thing about carbon. "We should tax carbon so power generators are encouraged to burn less coal through the price mechanism." To me that's just fucking around. Better to just ban coal-burning power plants.
326, 329: Nothing but juice and yeah, they're 100% juice - or maybe more, going by the cost, which is $65/day!
||
While Halford was off railing against government fraud in his mind, the good guys seem to have slipped one past in Oracle v. Google.
"So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API," Judge Alsop wrote in a ruling released on Thursday, US time.
"It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical. Under the rules of Java, they must be identical to declare a method specifying the same functionality -- even when the implementation is different. When there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so and no one can monopolize that expression."|>
Suggestions that to be effective, a soda tax would have to be 15-20%.
332 -- that's a standard (and if Java works as described) entirely correct application of existing copyright principles. Copyright protects expression, not functional methods.
319: I'm in a different demographic than that study, I love the calorie counts, and they definitely changed my behavior. I'd like to see a study that broke down the participants in terms of current weight and values about eating and tested how degree of behavior change varied as those traits did. I suppose no one is writing these laws to aid people who want to move down or maintain in the not overweight/wouldn't mind slimming down to look better range, but it still makes me happy, and in any case, helping not overweight people to stay that way is probably an easier place to exert pressure against obesity than trying to change the behavior of people who are already overweight. It would be very, very easy and natural for me to become overweight with time, and anything that makes it easier for people like me to maintain or periodically lose might be something that helps people keep from moving into the overweight column.
And annaH ffeJ's *face* is gross.
Copyright protects expression, not functional methods.
A hilarious distinction in the case of computer code, but hey.
The problem with that is there isn't universal agreement about good nutrition
True, but there's fairly broad agreement (I think) about what bad nutrition is. You don't have to give people a specific diet to follow to raise their level of awareness in significant ways. Halford and a devout vegan would agree that heavily processed foods don't contain much nutrition, that diabetes and high blood pressure can be caused or aggravated by certain types of foods, that cooking at home 3x a week saves meaningful amounts of money.
I don't know how effective these kinds of programs are; I've heard positive things anecdotally. I'm sure there are plenty of studies out there.
I've just eaten about 300 calories worth of Doritos, which is pretty much my quotient for the next two years.
331: Wow, that's expensive! I wondered if it was the slightly cultish yoga place's juice cleanse, but that one is cheaper. And when I went to their website just now to check the cost, I got hung up on the hilarious cleanse Q&A page.
Will I get enough calories? Taylor and Philippe don't believe in calories. They believe in the LIFE FORCE
I'm going to call bullshit on people drinking soda because they're hungry.
Even if hunger isn't the motivation soda is still a cheap pleasure. I was talking to a friend who grew up in a family that was on food stamps and she said that the remembers soda being a real treat at the ends of the month when they were eating a fried egg with rice for dinner.
Personally the ban sounds like a great idea and I support it. But I also think that it's good that the counter-argument, "you shouldn't tell people that they're wrong to want the things they want" should carry significant weight.
I think there's a big difference between policies which, "sound like a good idea and would be a good idea for almost everybody" and policies "which sound like a good idea and would be a good idea for a significant majority of people." One way to tell the difference between those categories is to take seriously the levels of complaints a proposal gets.
A couple of weeks ago when blueberries were cheap, I had a blueberry cleanse.
Taylor and Philippe don't believe in calories. They believe in the LIFE FORCE.
Screenplay: Taylor and Philippe meet Chuck Norris. Hilarity ensues.
You can just PayPal me 5% of the gross, thanks.
Also, this resonated.
I'm fat (read: out-of-shape and unhealthy) as shit right now after a year of sitting on my ass and stuffing myself with pizza and cake and stress
I've been really busy at work for the last 10 months (generally happily so, I have wanted to brag to the mineshaft at some point, but there hasn't been a moment which would lend itself to a good brag) and I knew that but was surprised to realize, about two months ago, that I'd put on weight in the previous four months. I've managed to stop that, but I was surprised to see a difference in that short a time period.
319:If there's anything we should be learning from recent decades' experience, it's that transparency doesn't inherently lead to change.
Sure, people have to be motivated to change either their own behaviors or put pressure on the relevant power structures to change (I assume that is what your "transparency" was alluding to). So presumably behaviors need to change because of some collective interest in societal health, and not just because it's good for them/us and you/someone knows best. Just how wide are you planning to cast that net? What makes soda a priority and not, say, snack foods in general? More generally, what makes you think that this will have social benefits that outweigh the costs of pissing people off about the nanny state so that they turn around and support Right to Work legislation on the principle that the government shouldn't be forcing anyone to do something they don't want?
...pissing people off about the nanny state so that they turn around and support Right to Work legislation on the principle that the government shouldn't be forcing anyone to do something they don't want?
None of this will happen. Soda servings will get smaller, people will get a bit healthier and that will be the end of the story. Good lord.
I should make that into a statement. I think proposals like this have not a lot of benefit and real political costs.
347: Exactly. Maybe not in New York City or other places where there is no real chance of political reaction (in both senses), but in other places.
People say the same thing about carbon. "We should tax carbon so power generators are encouraged to burn less coal through the price mechanism." To me that's just fucking around. Better to just ban coal-burning power plants.
Yes, well, good luck getting that one through Congress. Also, coal use for power generation has recently been plummeting along with the price of natural gas. To me this indicates that relative prices are hugely important in determining the mix of fuels for generation, and that a carbon tax would in fact have worked well to reduce coal use (provided it was set at a reasonable level).
346, 348: This is one of the things you do with political power. If you think it's useless, or an undue infringement of libery, that's fine. But to argue that we shouldn't do it for fear of losing political power doesn't make a great deal of sense.
I used to work at a place that did a lot of obesity research (and actually where Tom Farley, the NYC Health Commissioner who has pushed for a lot of this stuff, used to work also), although I was more focused on promoting physical activity. I do have the occasional semi-libertarian flare-up at restrictions on commodities - but the truth is a) the prices of sodas, fast food etc. are totally skewed b) there's pretty much zero chance of the farm bill being usefully rewritten to undo that skewing c) since government has a big responsibility for the mess (viz. super cheap super low quality calories all over the place), it's unreasonable to expect individual people to make the choices that mitigate its effects d) it's hard in general for us (as a species) to resist high calorie/high sugar/high fat treats - so any law/regulation that makes them less easy to get is good for us. I mean, it's not forbidding sodas - it's just trying to make serving sizes less obscene - not that far off the continuum from zoning restrictions that keep fast food outlets a certain distance from schools - so kids (even less impulse control than the rest of us) are still at perfect liberty to buy fast food, but it's not absurdly easy.
350: The supreme and final end of political power is weight management?
352: One of many usesThe supreme and final end of political power is weight management?the improvement of public health.
Fixed!
If you hadn't completely ignored the issue of whether or not there are political costs, you'd be much less of an asshole for doing that "fixed" thing.
I don't think there's going to be political costs.
Not any that outweigh the benefit of the policy, at least.
For the Sodastream owners out there, has anyone used the diet cola mix? Is it any good?
OT: the local sports radio guys talking hockey are hilarious. "So, OK, what's icing?"
All the soda mixes seemed awful to me -- it came with samples, and the kids tried them out. I'm not much for soda at the best of times, but they haven't been asking for more (and we did not have a 'no soda mixes' conversation). I think they probably objectively suck. But maybe someone likes them.
358: Is it funny because they're talking about baking on a sports show? I, for one, salute them for going beyond the narrow confines of the format.
Now the sports radio guys have gone from confessing ignorance about/revealing the results of a 3 hour crash course in hockey to talking about Girls. Turns out they are huge fans.
360: My experience was the same as LB's, though I think we only tried a couple.
357: Not as acidic as California diet Pepsi, IMO. Not bad, nothing special.
362: So a conversation about cake frosting segues right into talking about girls? What a bunch of sexists.
I think talk about the backlash against a potential progressive policy is almost always highly overstated, and amounts to giving up because it can apply to pretty much anything.
I don't want to discount perceived intrusiveness - it can be an indicator of overreach, yes - but I continue not to see this as nearly rising to that level. I submit that the only people it would at all annoy are people keyed in enough to know that it was a government-directed change, which is to say, people whose minds are already made up.
What makes soda a priority and not, say, snack foods in general?
Nothing. I would cast a broader net if it were up to me, preferably with help from experts on the exact breadth. But as I said above, I think this particular one might, by demonstrating the political feasibility of food-limitation policy, reduce supporters' instincts to tiptoe around big food interests, and make it easier to start on larger change.
I grew up on soda, and still drink a lot of it (almost entirely diet; Sprite Zero and Diet Mountain Dew, often, and sometimes Coke Zero although the acidy quality of cola gets old quickly). I get that the sugary variety is unhealthy, but I've been surprised by how often people tell me the diet stuff is bad for me. (Due to, varyingly, artificial sweeteners, carbonation, or caffeine.) Seems like a lot of people I know are basically mainlining espresso, which I can't imagine is better.
A couple of times I've switched to just drinking water or tea, but I always end up with soda again.
362: So a conversation about cake frosting segues right into talking about girls? What a bunch of sexists.
No, no, they were talking about bros icing bros, and then, because they're feminists, acknowledged that girls, too, ice and are iced in turn.
It's discussed upthread, but the speculation, backed by some (AFAIK, inconclusive) evidence, is that artificial sweeteners screw with your satiety mechanism -- your body gets a signal that X calories are coming in from your tastebuds, and then when they don't show up something bad happens; either you're motivated to replace them, or something with insulin regulation. I don't know how reliable it is, but that's the vague area of the thinking.
I think the current state of the evidence on espresso, on the other hand, is that if it's not making you uncomfortably jittery, anxious, or insomniac, it's mostly between harmless and good for you.
acknowledged that girls, too, ice and are iced in turn
Well it's about time!
essear, how is carbonation supposed to be bad for you?
Several people have told me carbonated drinks lower bone density, but none of them could explain the mechanism and I've never tried to look it up.
Possibly they're confusing carbonation with phosphoric acid, consumption of which does have some correlation with lower bone density.
I remember hearing that phosphoric acid (present in some but not all types of soda) leaches calcium from your bones. Wikipedia indicates that the evidence on this is mixed.
Five minutes of Googling suggests that a) Nathan is right and b) there's a whole lot of imprecision in terms like carbonated water, mineral water, soda water, and carbonated drinks.
I drank two glasses of water this afternoon rather than another diet soda. Now I'm going to go out to dinner and treat myself for that.
Now I'm going to go out to dinner and treat myself for that.
"Something to drink, sir?"
"Yes, two Diet Cokes, please."
376: Articles like that are good for understanding what might be happening on a population level, but only useful in a limited way for an individual trying to understand what's happening for them. They give you something to be on the look out for, but if your goal is weight loss, then you have the best, richest source of information about the kind of habits that support it or don't for you. I think diet soda helps me lose/maintain if it's in conjunction with other efforts, and when I don't have it around, I just look for something to eat when I want to mindlessly ingest something. I am also waaaayyy more hydrated than I would be if I weren't drinking a bunch of soda (because I just wouldn't be motivated to drink enough water/tea to maintain hydration).
332, 334, 336. . .
The phrasing and reasoning in the judicial opinion is odd. I am, to date, but an amateur programmer. That said, allowing people to use the same interfaces but restricting fair use of "equivalent" implementations is one of those distinctions that appears reasonable from the outside, but, even from my limited programming experience, makes no sense. Implementing an interface is an engineering problem. As such, solutions will converge that achieve efficiency on whatever the relevant criteria are.
369: something with insulin regulation.
I'm willing to believe the diet sodas are bad. That said, the regular sodas produce a blood glucose spike and then insulin (over) production even faster than a sugared donut does. The transplant team at Emory had us carry a can of regular soda around at all times while they were trying to get the X's metabolism regulated.
IMX diet sodas don't produce anywhere near the almost craving for another one that regular sugared sodas do.
I switched from regular cokes to unsweetened Ice tea. A certain amount of cravings for caffeinated soda is due to the caffeine. People are really picky about how they like their caffeine because they have pavlovian conditioned themselves to associate the the details with the caffeine reward:
http://oreilly.com/catalog/mindhks/chapter/hack92.pdf
It will take a couple weeks but you can switch if you want to.
Seems like a lot of people I know are basically mainlining espresso, which I can't imagine is better.
Coffee has a tremendously broad array of health benefits and the effect of many of them appear to go up with increased consumption. From a health perspective it's difficult to have "too much" coffee.
383: At issue is what in coffee is good and what might not be. It's one hell of a complicated substance. On occasion I've managed to get "too much" if too much is related to hand tremors, cardiac arrhythmias, and, to put it in medical terms, generally feeling like shit.
Implementing an interface is an engineering problem. As such, solutions will converge that achieve efficiency on whatever the relevant criteria are.
Generally speaking, "solutions will converge that achieve efficiency" is a problem for patent law, not copyright. Patents protect ideas about how to do things. Copyright protects expressions, primarily artistic expression, and not methods of expression, which is why computer programming languages (or languages generally) are not copyrightable, and which is why there is a functionality exception to copyright law. If there's only one way to functionally achieve something, you can't copyright it, and copyright doesn't extend to names and short phrases. Those are the basic principle Judge Alsup relied on here, and they are good principles. I'd need to know more about the facts of the case, which are fairly technical, to know whether Judge Alsup in fact got it right, but based on his description of the facts he pretty clearly did, and saying "hey different expressions of code will converge on efficient solutions" isn't really a copyright argument. Copyright just protects the expressions.
Yeah, if you're susceptible to the heart getting twitchy you need to cut back. My dad cut back in grad school for the same reason. I'm only in my mid 30's but so far indicators are I can drink a metric shitload of the stuff without that effect.
But at least it's easy to tell when it's time to cut back. "Oh look, my heart is skipping beats" is a nice little metric.
It seems like the Sodastream mixes have not improved since we had one nearly 30 years ago. What we actually ended up using was our regular dilutable orange squash. When I was a bit older I used to like Rose's lime cordial.
387: Someone should have told one of my neighbors that before his family called the paramedics who carted him off to the UAB ER. It turned out he had blown his electrolyte balance to hell and gone and also over-stimmed himself with massive doses of iced tea and coffee. Good times.
This place was incredible for brunch.
I love just plain old fizzy water. Fizz, fizz fizz. Jane does a superb imitation of the Sodastream's characteristic three-raspberry all-set sound.
Related to the OP, I lost a significant amount of weight at the beginning of the year due to a whacked-out thyroid and have ever since been getting all the complimentary sort of comments pointing out the weight loss. And I have found that decidedly uncomfortable. Because (a) it's all framed in that congratulatory tone which is well-meaning but undeserved as my body is what it currently is for reasons wholly beyond my influence. And (2) I hate generally to reinforce the thinner is better mindset, but especially so where thinner, in fact, was a sign of a medical problem to be fixed. I've taken to responding to the "Wow, you lost so much weight!" praise with "Yeah, my thyroid was sooo fucked up!" But that probably makes people unnecessarily uncomfortable.
Yes, during my recent convalescence, I noted how frightfully easy it was to lose weight when the material you ingest is limited to:
1. Air
2. IV drip (of lactated Ringer's? something like that)
3. Dilaudid
4. Stool softeners
I lost 5 pounds in 7 days.
Anyhoo, I've lost around 50 pounds in the past 3-4 years, and live as long as she may, Heebie's never going to get close to what I weigh.
I am going to sound like a crazy person but I just don't much like the seltzer my SodaStream makes so I never use it. I buy tons of seltzer instead. How bubbly water can taste different from other bubbly water...
(I really love Gerolsteiner with its artisanal hand-stretched bubbles.)
394: Soft stools are their own reward.
384: I've hit that also. It really does self-reinforce reasonable levels of consumption.
378: "Yes, two Diet Cokes, please."
Without ice.
Actually, one 22 oz. glass of beer and a glass of water.
This seems like as good a place as any to announce that I just accepted a gig ghost-writing a diet and fitness book. A friend and I have two weeks to turn a 30,000-word manuscript into a 65,000-word manuscript. It's time to pad where no padding has padded before.
The IP/fair-use subthread may be as germane as the fattyfat main thread.
"Before beginning, starting, commencing, or setting out upon any new program for exercise, diet, health, or well being you should be sure to consult your medical care provider (e.g. a doctor or osteopath, but maybe a nurse practitioner or, we won't judge, some fraudulent homeopath)."
341 sounds right.
And people drink the huge sodas because they're bored. Their jobs are shitty and/or stressful, but here's a way to get some unadulterated sweetness. The big sodas are appealing because they distract for longer than the little ones.
Maybe you think that making these people healthier in the long run is more important than letting them satisfy their actual, hyperbolically discounted preferences - but don't pretend that it's what they really want. What they really want is some distraction from their dreary lives.
You could justify a ban on movies and TV for the same reason - no nutritional value, no educational value, and people sit on their asses while they watch, which is unhealthy. If they couldn't watch TV, maybe they'd play a game of basketball, which would be healthier and just as fun in the long run. OK, but that's not what they want, or they'd be doing it already.
I was pretty overweight - borderline obese - up through high school because I was bored. I didn't have any other real challenges to distract me, so I stuffed my face. Once I found some reasonably interesting uses for my time in college, I lost 15 pounds without trying - and grad school + work helped me drop another 20 afterwards.
OTOH it is just barely possible that these people would choose to have the temptation removed, if asked; that they prefer not to be tempted, but being tempted, give in. But if we really care about their preferences, then we should actually ask them.
In 404, by "real challenges" I meant interesting ones, that demanded a high level of performance from me. Obviously if something's painfully boring that could be construed as a "challenge" too - but that's not what I'm talking about. Otherwise the poor would not be bored.
It's time to pad where no padding has padded before.
I'm thinking not the best line for a diet book, but you're the writer...