shk75 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I agree that sodas are practically useless (unless it's coke mixed with Jack Daniels ) but comparing them to cigarettes is a pretty big reach. Yet their effects on the body are very similar. Cigarettes actually rarely cause cancer (something most people overlook) just like sugar has not been linked 100% as a toxicant and the debate surrounds dosage and what does become dangerous. However the similarities between the two and the effects they have on the body are strikingly similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Yet their effects on the body are very similar. Cigarettes actually rarely cause cancer (something most people overlook) just like sugar has not been linked 100% as a toxicant and the debate surrounds dosage and what does become dangerous. However the similarities between the two and the effects they have on the body are strikingly similar. Your body actually needs sugars to function normally which puts them on an entirely different level than cigarettes. This simply is not debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 School lunches are healthy? Who knew?Seriously, the tater tots and pizza and sloppy joes and other crap I ate as part of a school lunch certainly was pretty bad. I guess the chocolate milk at least had milk in it. Don't be so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shk75 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Your body actually needs sugars to function normally which puts them on an entirely different level than cigarettes. This simply is not debatable. Agreed, yet the sugar you need is easily attained through eating a regular diet rich in fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, and multigrains. The point is not that sugar itself in natural foods is like cigarettes. It is that sugar as we are consuming it today (soda, cake, candy) are in fact similar to cigarettes in that they have provide not nutritional value at all and are in fact dangerous, so much so that a growing number of people consider sugar in that form to be toxic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Cigarettes actually rarely cause cancer (something most people overlook) Where are you getting this from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shk75 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Where are you getting this from? Common knowledge among epidemiologists. While cigarettes vastly increase your risk of lung cancer and heart disease, taken as a whole the percentage of smokers who actually develop lung cancer is still relatively small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Agreed, yet the sugar you need is easily attained through eating a regular diet rich in fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, and multigrains. The point is not that sugar itself in natural foods is like cigarettes. It is that sugar as we are consuming it today (soda, cake, candy) are in fact similar to cigarettes in that they have provide not nutritional value at all and are in fact dangerous, so much so that a growing number of people consider sugar in that form to be toxic. There's a problem with that thinking, though. Even highly processed sugars still do provide nutritional value, it's just unbalanced and very low quality nutrition. A cigarette provides nothing to you that you need and, from a perspective of moderation, the risks are astronomically higher. Also, the importance of grains (whether multi or whole) is dramatically overstated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Common knowledge among epidemiologists. While cigarettes vastly increase your risk of lung cancer and heart disease, taken as a whole the percentage of smokers who actually develop lung cancer is still relatively small. Cigarettes elevate the risk of developing cancer for those who are genetically predisposed to it which I'm guessing we agree upon. But cancer is not the only harmful side effect of cigarettes and cigarette smokers are also at risk for other types of cancers as well. I'm not disagreeing with you that sugars (although the term sugar is quite vague) are bad, just that I would say that cigarettes are a lot more toxic than common sugars. I do see where your coming from. Over exposure to either over a long period of time will generally have moderate to serious health consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shk75 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 There's a problem with that thinking, though. Even highly processed sugars still do provide nutritional value, it's just unbalanced and very low quality nutrition. A cigarette provides nothing to you that you need and, from a perspective of moderation, the risks are astronomically higher. Well I guess here we just disagree. The research I have seen shows that those sugars provide absolutely no nutritional value at all. ---------- Post added April-13th-2011 at 02:55 PM ---------- Cigarettes elevate the risk of developing cancer for those who are genetically predisposed to it which I'm guessing we agree upon. But cancer is not the only harmful side effect of cigarettes and cigarette smokers are also at risk for other types of cancers as well. I'm not disagreeing with you that sugars (although the term sugar is quite vague) are bad, just that I would say that cigarettes are a lot more toxic than common sugars. I do see where your coming from. Over exposure to either over a long period of time will generally have moderate to serious health consequences. You are correct they do increase risk for other cancers as well and I agree that my analogy is not perfect it does have its flaws. What I was trying to point out is that these sodas and candy bars that are being sold at schools should not be sold and should not even be allowed on campus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Yet smoking reduces the risks of other diseases can sugar do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Well I guess here we just disagree. The research I have seen shows that those sugars provide absolutely no nutritional value at all. You're taking a very narrow perspective on what nutritional value entails. Remove your healthy eating goggles for a moment and consider the following statement: If the body can make use of a nutrient for some purpose, that nutrient has value. It may be a poor substitute for other, much more beneficial nutrients in a healthy diet and its value may be assumed to be negligible by someone who wishes to make good dietary choices but that does not change the fact that it has some small value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shk75 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 You're taking a very narrow perspective on what nutritional value entails. Remove your healthy eating goggles for a moment and consider the following statement:If the body can make use of a nutrient for some purpose, that nutrient has value. It may be a poor substitute for other, much more beneficial nutrients in a healthy diet and it's value may be assumed to be negligible by someone who wishes to make good dietary choices but that does not change the fact that it has some small value. I am not a nutritionist and I am not a health eating nut. I am trying to synthesize research by those who are specialists in the field. Here is a quote for you. "Sugar may be a naturally occurring substance, but not in the refined form that we consume it today. The argument is that once it's refined so that it can be consumed in large quantities and quickly, it has effects that are toxic to the liver and then the body at large" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I did not say sodas could not be made healthy what I said was the types that are in school have no nutritional value whatsoever and some even consider them toxic. Why should schools allow these items. What is the difference between allowing soda and allowing cigarettes. Both are not that dangerous if they are consumed in small amounts yet neither have any nutritious value at all. and the types of food you said could be made healthy are not the types that schools currently serve, it works both ways. why not just take out school lunch altogether, it's all unhealthy and too much of something can kill you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I am not a nutritionist and I am not a health eating nut. I am trying to synthesize research by those who are specialists in the field. Here is a quote for you."Sugar may be a naturally occurring substance, but not in the refined form that we consume it today. The argument is that once it's refined so that it can be consumed in large quantities and quickly, it has effects that are toxic to the liver and then the body at large" Understandable, I'm not a health professional but I try to maintain a good understanding of nutrition for my own purposes. That quote you pulled is more or less in agreement with the core of what I'm getting at. The problem isn't with sugars themselves, it's the fact that we're ingesting them in quantities far higher than our body is meant to handle efficiently. Refinement and processing is more or less the vessel through which we can achieve that, as it's very hard to take in so much sugar on a more natural diet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Grass fed beef is far from bad for you, even if it's not super lean.There are also reasonably healthy options for frying foods, it's not nearly as difficult a task as you make it sound. Fruit juice is really only a good option if it is fresh squeezed and served in a small quantity and probably shouldn't even be part of your diet when you can eat your fruit just as easily. At the very least, even if you feel compelled to drink fruit juice at least you're getting some vitamins and whatnot whereas soda has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. yeah but the beef they serve in school lunches is not grass fed, and the healthier option for frying is still frying, but i wasn't intending on making it sound difficult, it was a legitimate question, how are fries good for you? juice is just as unhealthy as soda even with the vitamins in it, unless it is actual fruit put into a blender (this is all paraphrased as i accidentally closed my window with a nice little paragraph ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shk75 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 and the types of food you said could be made healthy are not the types that schools currently serve, it works both ways. why not just take out school lunch altogether, it's all unhealthy and too much of something can kill you. I agree schools are doing a horrible job of regulating the school lunches. I am not against burgers or fries or chicken fingers. I am against the unhealthy way in which they are being prepared and served to our children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 yeah but the beef they serve in school lunches is not grass fed, and the healthier option for frying is still frying, but i wasn't intending on making it sound difficult, it was a legitimate question, how are fries good for you?juice is just as unhealthy as soda even with the vitamins in it, unless it is actual fruit put into a blender (this is all paraphrased as i accidentally closed my window with a nice little paragraph ) We were talking about healthy alternatives weren't we? Grass fed beef would be a healthy alternative. How bad frying is depends entirely on technique and what oil you use. Alternately, you can still make some really ****ing good fries in the oven and even go the sweet potato route for an added health bonus. I'm with you on juice being worthless for the most part, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shk75 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 We were talking about healthy alternatives weren't we? Grass fed beef would be a healthy alternative. How bad frying is depends entirely on technique and what oil you use. Alternately, you can still make some really ****ing good fries in the oven and even go the sweet potato route for an added health bonus.I'm with you on juice being worthless for the most part, though. Very true. Fries do not have to be fried they can be baked and baked sweet potato fries are delicious. Juice is also bad but not as bas as soda because the sugar is not refined. A healthy alternative for kids would be smoothies made with fresh fruit and yoghurt and those are really pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Good thought but a horrible policy. Something, not this, does need to be done to fight childhood obesity though. At least we have administrators who care and are attempting to implement creative solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botched Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). What the hell??? When mom made my lunch it would be a ham sandwich on wheat bread with light mayonnaise, to go along with baby carrots and a juice box. When I ate school lunch it was pizza with french fries and a chocolate milk. I much preferred getting lunch at school. It was junk food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I disagree with the principal's decision, but let's not pretend that prohibiting schoolchildren from bringing lunches from home is tantamount to turning the U.S. into the society described in 1984. It was kind of a joke, but the more you read headlines nowadays, the more different factions of society want to control every aspect of our lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I would like to see schools do the following. Build a large garden and have it be a mandatory class. Have kids take turns working in the cafeteria as a mandatory class. Have a snack time at 10 and 2, with lunch at 12. (snack time can be an apple and a glass of water) In homeroom (we had that ten minute class for role call in the morning, after your first class) have a quick healthy cereal breakfast. Your brain only functions because of the fuel you feed it. Kids need to learn how to be fed correctly, because most adults don't even know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Kool, any reason why you're opting for two snacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Kool, any reason why you're opting for two snacks? It's a healthier way to eat. You should never have a meal, larger than you could hold in your 2 hands. Eating a smaller meal, but more of them, allows the body to process your food and turn it into energy, without bogging it down to much. When you do that, you get sluggish and dim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I can't wait until all of you authoritarian nuts are in nursing homes so my generation can clean up your Orwellian mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.