HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

NYC seeks to ban large soft drinks

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-07-2012, 04:55 PM
  #126
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
The number of people I know that have Type 2 diabetes is growing steadily. Go Bloomberg.
Here is a random thought or two for you to ponder.

Do vegetarians get diabetes?

Do people who only drink water at every meal develop cancer? Do people who only drink water die?

For once you look past the attempt of government to regulate every aspect of your life "for your own good" and look at the reality (and mortality) that we as humans face, you will see Bloomberg for what he is. An authoritarian who wants to control your life from cradle to grave.

But it is anecdotal evidence like you mentioned that makes it sound like such a good common sense measure.

And.............

Diabetes is not caused by sugar. That myth is older than you are. Genetics is the number one determining factor whether a person will develop diabetes.

The dumbing down of America continues.......

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 05:05 PM
  #127
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Here is a random thought or two for you to ponder.

Do vegetarians get diabetes?

Do people who only drink water at every meal develop cancer? Do people who only drink water die?

For once you look past the attempt of government to regulate every aspect of your life "for your own good" and look at the reality (and mortality) that we as humans face, you will see Bloomberg for what he is. An authoritarian who wants to control your life from cradle to grave.

But it is anecdotal evidence like you mentioned that makes it sound like such a good common sense measure.

And.............

Diabetes is not caused by sugar. That myth is older than you are. Genetics is the number one determining factor whether a person will develop diabetes.

The dumbing down of America continues.......
Do you try to be an obnoxious twit or does it just come naturally?

There is no end to reports on the connection between obesity and type 2 diabetes so please, have another Super Big Gulp.

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 05:30 PM
  #128
Helton4Hall
Internet Charlatan
 
Helton4Hall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Storming the Gates
Country: South Korea
Posts: 18,477
vCash: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
Do you try to be an obnoxious twit or does it just come naturally?

There is no end to reports on the connection between obesity and type 2 diabetes so please, have another Super Big Gulp.
That is simply not true.

Helton4Hall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 05:38 PM
  #129
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Jones View Post
That is simply not true.
Yes there is:

Quote:
Type 2 diabetes

Causes
By Mayo Clinic staff

Type 2 diabetes develops when the body becomes resistant to insulin or when the pancreas stops producing enough insulin. Exactly why this happens is unknown, although excess weight and inactivity seem to be contributing factors.

Insulin is a hormone that comes from the pancreas, a gland situated just behind and below the stomach. When you eat, the pancreas secretes insulin into the bloodstream. As insulin circulates, it acts like a key by unlocking microscopic doors that allow sugar to enter your cells. Insulin lowers the amount of sugar in your bloodstream. As your blood sugar level drops, so does the secretion of insulin from your pancreas.

Glucose — a sugar — is a main source of energy for the cells that make up muscles and other tissues. Glucose comes from two major sources: the food you eat and your liver. After intestinal digestion and absorption, sugar is absorbed into the bloodstream. Normally, sugar then enters cells with the help of insulin.

The liver acts as a glucose storage and manufacturing center. When your insulin levels are low — when you haven't eaten in a while, for example — the liver metabolizes stored glycogen into glucose to keep your glucose level within a normal range.

In type 2 diabetes, this process works improperly. Instead of moving into your cells, sugar builds up in your bloodstream. This occurs when your pancreas doesn't make enough insulin or your cells become resistant to the action of insulin.

In type 1 diabetes, which is much less common, the pancreas produces little or no insulin.

Diabetes mellitus type 2

Cause

The development of type 2 diabetes is caused by a combination of lifestyle and genetic factors.[7][9] While some are under personal control such as diet and obesity others such as increasing age, female gender, and genetics are not.[6] A lack of sleep has been linked to type 2 diabetes.[10] This is believed to act through its effect on metabolism.[10] The nutritional status of a mother during fetal development may also play a role with one proposed mechanism being that of altered DNA methylation.[11]
Lifestyle
Main article: Lifestyle causes of diabetes mellitus type 2

A number of lifestyle factors are known to be important to the development of type 2 diabetes including: obesity (defined by a body mass index of greater than thirty), lack of physical activity, poor diet, stress, and urbanization.[6] Excess body fat is associated with 30% of cases in those of Chinese and Japanese descent, 60-80% of cases in those of European and African descent, and 100% of Pima Indians and Pacific Islanders.[3] Those who are not obese often have a high waist–hip ratio.[3] Dietary factors also influence the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Consumption of sugar sweetened drinks in excess is associated with an increased risk.[12][13] The type of fats in the diet are also important, with saturated fats and trans fatty acids increasing the risk and polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat decreasing the risk.[9] Eating lots of white rice appears to also play a role in increasing risk.[14]
Genetics
Main article: Genetic causes of diabetes mellitus type 2

Most cases of diabetes involve many genes with each being a small contributor to an increased probability of becoming a type 2 diabetic.[6] If one identical twin has diabetes the chance of the other developing diabetes within their lifetime is greater than 90% while the rate for non-identical siblings is 25-50%.[3] As of 2011, more than 36 genes have been found that contribute to the risk of type 2 diabetes.[15] All of these genes together still only account for 10% of the total heritable component of the disease. The TCF7L2 allele for example increases the risk of developing diabetes by 1.5 times and is the greatest risk of the common genetic variants. Most of the genes link to diabetes are involved in beta cell functions.[3]

Doppler Drift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 05:44 PM
  #130
Helton4Hall
Internet Charlatan
 
Helton4Hall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Storming the Gates
Country: South Korea
Posts: 18,477
vCash: 69
I was stating in regards to sugar intake.

Helton4Hall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 05:55 PM
  #131
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Jones View Post
I was stating in regards to sugar intake.
This is what you replied to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
Do you try to be an obnoxious twit or does it just come naturally?

There is no end to reports on the connection between obesity and type 2 diabetes so please, have another Super Big Gulp.
He didn't use the word sugar there anyplace and there is indeed much literature regarding the link between obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Doppler Drift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 05:55 PM
  #132
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,191
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Jones View Post
I was stating in regards to sugar intake.
It's still there:

Quote:
Cause

The development of type 2 diabetes is caused by a combination of lifestyle and genetic factors.[7][9] While some are under personal control such as diet and obesity others such as increasing age, female gender, and genetics are not.[6] A lack of sleep has been linked to type 2 diabetes.[10] This is believed to act through its effect on metabolism.[10] The nutritional status of a mother during fetal development may also play a role with one proposed mechanism being that of altered DNA methylation.[11]
Lifestyle
Main article: Lifestyle causes of diabetes mellitus type 2

A number of lifestyle factors are known to be important to the development of type 2 diabetes including: obesity (defined by a body mass index of greater than thirty), lack of physical activity, poor diet, stress, and urbanization.[6] Excess body fat is associated with 30% of cases in those of Chinese and Japanese descent, 60-80% of cases in those of European and African descent, and 100% of Pima Indians and Pacific Islanders.[3] Those who are not obese often have a high waist–hip ratio.[3] Dietary factors also influence the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Consumption of sugar sweetened drinks in excess is associated with an increased risk.[12][13] The type of fats in the diet are also important, with saturated fats and trans fatty acids increasing the risk and polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat decreasing the risk.[9] Eating lots of white rice appears to also play a role in increasing risk.[14]
Genetics
Main article: Genetic causes of diabetes mellitus type 2

Most cases of diabetes involve many genes with each being a small contributor to an increased probability of becoming a type 2 diabetic.[6] If one identical twin has diabetes the chance of the other developing diabetes within their lifetime is greater than 90% while the rate for non-identical siblings is 25-50%.[3] As of 2011, more than 36 genes have been found that contribute to the risk of type 2 diabetes.[15] All of these genes together still only account for 10% of the total heritable component of the disease. The TCF7L2 allele for example increases the risk of developing diabetes by 1.5 times and is the greatest risk of the common genetic variants. Most of the genes link to diabetes are involved in beta cell functions.[3]
Note the sources [12] and [13]:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez

In the end, SouthernHab is basically doing the classic anti-science Republican schtick: it doesn't fit the mold of everyone, therefore the science is wrong. Just because not everyone who gets diabetes is obese (or eats a lot of sugar) or because not everyone who is obese (or eats a lot of sugar) gets diabetes doesn't mean that obesity (and sugar) cannot be a significant contributor to getting diabetes.


Last edited by Leafsdude7: 06-07-2012 at 06:00 PM.
Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 06:39 PM
  #133
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
It's still there:



Note the sources [12] and [13]:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez

In the end, SouthernHab is basically doing the classic anti-science Republican schtick: it doesn't fit the mold of everyone, therefore the science is wrong. Just because not everyone who gets diabetes is obese (or eats a lot of sugar) or because not everyone who is obese (or eats a lot of sugar) gets diabetes doesn't mean that obesity (and sugar) cannot be a significant contributor to getting diabetes.
Similar to when Republican politicians were having photo ops eating pink slime to prove that it isn't bad for us. Just like high fructose corn syrup it is a big money maker for the Red states,

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 07:02 PM
  #134
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK View Post
Do you try to be an obnoxious twit or does it just come naturally?

There is no end to reports on the connection between obesity and type 2 diabetes so please, have another Super Big Gulp.
Spin it however you like and call me a twit but the reality is that diabetes is a genetic problem.

Yes, being a fat ass and being diabetic is a recipe for additional medical problems. Being a fat ass and non-diabetic is asking for health problems.

However, and you skated by my questions. Why?

Do people at normal weight develop health problems, diabetes included?

Do people who never eat sugar nor drink sweetened drinks ever develop serious health problems?

Until you can honestly answer those questions, then you are nothing but a shill for more progressives intent upon reducing people's individual freedom to choose.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 07:04 PM
  #135
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
It's still there:



Note the sources [12] and [13]:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez

In the end, SouthernHab is basically doing the classic anti-science Republican schtick: it doesn't fit the mold of everyone, therefore the science is wrong. Just because not everyone who gets diabetes is obese (or eats a lot of sugar) or because not everyone who is obese (or eats a lot of sugar) gets diabetes doesn't mean that obesity (and sugar) cannot be a significant contributor to getting diabetes.
You are full of ****.

In the link that you provided, genetics was referred to as a cause of diabetes. THAT is science, my friend........"The development of type 2 diabetes is caused by a combination of lifestyle and genetic factors.[7][9] While some are under personal control such as diet and obesity others such as increasing age, female gender, and genetics are not."

Bloomberg could ban sodas completely from New York City and the people with genetic predispositions to diabetes will still develop diabetes. That is science. Not nanny state authoritarianism.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 07:04 PM
  #136
Hugh Mann*
Hey! Hey! You! You!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New Westminster, BC
Country: Greenland
Posts: 17,514
vCash: 50
Where did you get your MD, SouthernHab? It must have been from some immensely prestigious school if you have the expertise needed to challenge the consensus that diabetes can be caused by environmental factors. And no, scattering the word "science" at random throughout your posts doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

Hugh Mann* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 07:07 PM
  #137
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Mann View Post
Where did you get your MD, SouthernHab? It must have been from some immensely prestigious school if you have the expertise needed to challenge the consensus that diabetes can be caused by environmental factors. And no, scattering the word "science" at random throughout your posts doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.
What part of genetics do you not understand?

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 07:09 PM
  #138
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Hugh Mann

This request has been ignored by most on this thread. Maybe you can help.

Can you show me data where underweight or even average weight people (who did not eat any sugar) never developed diabetes?

Thanks.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 07:11 PM
  #139
Hugh Mann*
Hey! Hey! You! You!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New Westminster, BC
Country: Greenland
Posts: 17,514
vCash: 50
Oh wow, it's like you're selectively illiterate. When someone says that condition x is caused by a combination of y and z, it means both such factors are essential in causing the condition. If someone is predisposed to diabetes by genetic factors, environmental factors (i.e. poor diet) are still essential in causing the condition. There are only a tiny tiny number of diabetics in the world who cannot possibly avoid the condition by making healthy lifestyle choices, and the vast majority of diabetics in America could avoid it if they bothered to eat right and exercise regularly. There's a reason why diabetes is relatively rare outside the developed world. You'd have to be impressively retarded to not draw the link between obesity and diabetes.

It is a matter of personal responsibility, but it's also a matter of public health and hygiene, since the personal decisions you make impact the well being of others (i.e. consuming more health care resources than necessary). Non-idiots agree that the state can and should incentivize good personal habits without explicitly banning bad personal habits.


Last edited by Hugh Mann*: 06-07-2012 at 07:21 PM.
Hugh Mann* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 07:19 PM
  #140
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,191
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
You are full of ****.

In the link that you provided, genetics was referred to as a cause of diabetes. THAT is science, my friend........"The development of type 2 diabetes is caused by a combination of lifestyle and genetic factors.[7][9] While some are under personal control such as diet and obesity others such as increasing age, female gender, and genetics are not."

Bloomberg could ban sodas completely from New York City and the people with genetic predispositions to diabetes will still develop diabetes. That is science. Not nanny state authoritarianism.
Okay, I can play that game. Check out the following from the same website:

Quote:
Onset of type 2 diabetes can be delayed or prevented through proper nutrition and regular exercise.
Though, yes, lower sugary intake has not been proven to definitely reduce the risk of diabetes significantly, there is some evidence supporting that position. The position that "people with genetic predispositions to diabetes will still develop diabetes" regardless of dietary or other lifestyle changes, forced or otherwise, is beyond flawed and absolutely not scientific. A genetic predisposition to any condition doesn't mean you "will" develop it, or even that you're likely to develop it.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 07:32 PM
  #141
Yoshimitsu
Registered User
 
Yoshimitsu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 4,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
You are full of ****.

In the link that you provided, genetics was referred to as a cause of diabetes. THAT is science, my friend........"The development of type 2 diabetes is caused by a combination of lifestyle and genetic factors.[7][9] While some are under personal control such as diet and obesity others such as increasing age, female gender, and genetics are not."

Bloomberg could ban sodas completely from New York City and the people with genetic predispositions to diabetes will still develop diabetes. That is science. Not nanny state authoritarianism.
No. Diabetes is caused when a person lives what is referred to as a "diabetogenic lifestyle" (obesity, lack of exercise, etc) in addition to having certain genetic variations that predisposes them to the condition. A person's genes alone does not cause diabetes, as evidenced by the fact that over 90% of the people with diabetes are obese. The insulin resistance that develops from chronic obesity and lack of exercise is the primary driver in diabetes.

So no, your assertion is not correct. If people with a genetic predisposition to diabetes removed all of the negative environmental factors from their lives, they would be unlikely to develop the disease.

Quote:
Can you show me data where underweight or even average weight people (who did not eat any sugar) never developed diabetes?
As I said, over 90% of the people who develop type 2 diabetes are obese.

Rarely, healthy, active, non smokers will develop atherosclerosis. Does that mean that obesity, a sedentary lifestyle, and smoking do not contribute significantly to heart disease?

Please explain why type 2 diabetes is more prevalent in Western (fatter) countries than in developing or Eastern countries, where rates of obesity are much lower and exercise is more common. Also, please explain away the correlation between a rise in type 2 diabetes and the adoption of a Western style diet, as has been seen in many nations. I await your response.

You should probably just stick to parroting bullshit right-wing talking points and forget about "science."

Yoshimitsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 08:21 PM
  #142
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshimitsu View Post
No. Diabetes is caused when a person lives what is referred to as a "diabetogenic lifestyle" (obesity, lack of exercise, etc) in addition to having certain genetic variations that predisposes them to the condition. A person's genes alone does not cause diabetes, as evidenced by the fact that over 90% of the people with diabetes are obese. The insulin resistance that develops from chronic obesity and lack of exercise is the primary driver in diabetes.

So no, your assertion is not correct. If people with a genetic predisposition to diabetes removed all of the negative environmental factors from their lives, they would be unlikely to develop the disease.

As I said, over 90% of the people who develop type 2 diabetes are obese.

Rarely, healthy, active, non smokers will develop atherosclerosis. Does that mean that obesity, a sedentary lifestyle, and smoking do not contribute significantly to heart disease?

Please explain why type 2 diabetes is more prevalent in Western (fatter) countries than in developing or Eastern countries, where rates of obesity are much lower and exercise is more common. Also, please explain away the correlation between a rise in type 2 diabetes and the adoption of a Western style diet, as has been seen in many nations. I await your response.

You should probably just stick to parroting bullshit right-wing talking points and forget about "science."
Do thin people develop diseases that require hospitalization?

Do people that drink only water and never drink Coca Cola develop diseases that require hospitalization?

Do people that eat "Eastern style diets" ever develop diseases that require hospitalization?

Until then, you are simply shilling for authoritarian rule and the reduction of freedom in America.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 08:24 PM
  #143
Hugh Mann*
Hey! Hey! You! You!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New Westminster, BC
Country: Greenland
Posts: 17,514
vCash: 50
That's a bit like asking if sober people ever cause car accidents, and from the answer concluding that alcohol consumption does not.

Hugh Mann* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 08:28 PM
  #144
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Mann View Post
Oh wow, it's like you're selectively illiterate. When someone says that condition x is caused by a combination of y and z, it means both such factors are essential in causing the condition. If someone is predisposed to diabetes by genetic factors, environmental factors (i.e. poor diet) are still essential in causing the condition. There are only a tiny tiny number of diabetics in the world who cannot possibly avoid the condition by making healthy lifestyle choices, and the vast majority of diabetics in America could avoid it if they bothered to eat right and exercise regularly. There's a reason why diabetes is relatively rare outside the developed world. You'd have to be impressively retarded to not draw the link between obesity and diabetes.

It is a matter of personal responsibility, but it's also a matter of public health and hygiene, since the personal decisions you make impact the well being of others (i.e. consuming more health care resources than necessary). Non-idiots agree that the state can and should incentivize good personal habits without explicitly banning bad personal habits.
Hugh Mann. Here is an interesting concept.

Its called personal responsibility. I pay for my own health insurance that covers myself and my family. YOU have no worries about paying for my health care.

And it figures that you support authoritarian rules from the idiot Bloomberg with your statement of consuming more health care resources than necessary. You arrogant piece of ****.

What about you? Should we send someone from HHS to your house to look over your shoulder? Should we have someone from HHS come by and deny service to your son or your daughter or your gay lover or your mother or your father because some "bureaucrat" decides that "you have used up all of the resources allocated to YOU".

Its all fine advocating authoritarian rules as long as it does not affect YOU. But sad to say, Progressives as yourself will be facing what the rest of America will be facing if/when we go down the road of "allocated resource utilization" and healthcare.

Stay healthy and remember, people who avoid sugar and fatty foods and Big Gulps still end up in the hospital "one day".

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 08:28 PM
  #145
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Mann View Post
That's a bit like asking if sober people ever cause car accidents, and from the answer concluding that alcohol consumption does not.
No. That is called reality.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 08:32 PM
  #146
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
Okay, I can play that game. Check out the following from the same website:



Though, yes, lower sugary intake has not been proven to definitely reduce the risk of diabetes significantly, there is some evidence supporting that position. The position that "people with genetic predispositions to diabetes will still develop diabetes" regardless of dietary or other lifestyle changes, forced or otherwise, is beyond flawed and absolutely not scientific. A genetic predisposition to any condition doesn't mean you "will" develop it, or even that you're likely to develop it.
I can argue back and forth all day long with you and your clever wordsmithing.

Instead, I prefer to abide by what the non-partisan American Diabetes Association has to say regarding.......SCIENCE.



Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.

Fact: No, it does not. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-myths/

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 08:37 PM
  #147
Hugh Mann*
Hey! Hey! You! You!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New Westminster, BC
Country: Greenland
Posts: 17,514
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
And it figures that you support authoritarian rules from the idiot Bloomberg with your statement of consuming more health care resources than necessary. You arrogant piece of ****.
I have not taken a position on Mayor Bloomberg's ban on oversized soft drinks.

Quote:
What about you? Should we send someone from HHS to your house to look over your shoulder? Should we have someone from HHS come by and deny service to your son or your daughter or your gay lover or your mother or your father because some "bureaucrat" decides that "you have used up all of the resources allocated to YOU".

Its all fine advocating authoritarian rules as long as it does not affect YOU. But sad to say, Progressives as yourself will be facing what the rest of America will be facing if/when we go down the road of "allocated resource utilization" and healthcare.

Stay healthy and remember, people who avoid sugar and fatty foods and Big Gulps still end up in the hospital "one day".
You could send someone from the department of Health and Human Services to my home, but I don't think they'd have much to do once they arrived as I don't live within their jurisdiction (hint: look at my location).

I would, however, appreciate an explanation how prohibiting oversized soft drinks constitutes an "authoritarian" rule.

The United States currently has a system for rationing or allocating health care resources. All systems do. Allocation is the means of distributing resources, and America's system does that (e.g. no one can simply consume as many resources as they want). The problem with the American means of allocating resources is that frequently allocation is done on the basis of ability to pay instead of need, and frequently people in need of additional resources beyond their ability to pay are not able to obtain said resources. Reasonable people agree this is a significant problem, that it is not unique to the United States, and that something needs to be done about it. Reasonable people can disagree on how to solve the problem, but only idiots believe it isn't a problem in the first place. Nobody is proposing a system in which a pre-defined amount of resources would be allocated to any given person and resources beyond that amount denied.

I am not an "arrogant piece of ****." You are an idiot. You know absolutely nothing about anything at all. You are incapable of forming a coherent argument. There's nothing else to be taken from this thread.

Hugh Mann* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 08:40 PM
  #148
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Mann View Post
I have not taken a position on Mayor Bloomberg's ban on oversized soft drinks.



You could send someone from the department of Health and Human Services to my home, but I don't think they'd have much to do once they arrived as I don't live within their jurisdiction (hint: look at my location).

I would, however, appreciate an explanation how prohibiting oversized soft drinks constitutes an "authoritarian" rule.

The United States currently has a system for rationing or allocating health care resources. All systems do. Allocation is the means of distributing resources, and America's system does that (e.g. no one can simply consume as many resources as they want). The problem with the American means of allocating resources is that frequently allocation is done on the basis of ability to pay instead of need, and frequently people in need of additional resources beyond their ability to pay are not able to obtain said resources. Reasonable people agree this is a significant problem, that it is not unique to the United States, and that something needs to be done about it. Reasonable people can disagree on how to solve the problem, but only idiots believe it isn't a problem in the first place. Nobody is proposing a system in which a pre-defined amount of resources would be allocated to any given person and resources beyond that amount denied.

I am not an "arrogant piece of ****." You are an idiot. You know absolutely nothing about anything at all. You are incapable of forming a coherent argument. There's nothing else to be taken from this thread.
Good for you.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 08:58 PM
  #149
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
I can argue back and forth all day long with you and your clever wordsmithing.

Instead, I prefer to abide by what the non-partisan American Diabetes Association has to say regarding.......SCIENCE.



Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.

Fact: No, it does not. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-myths/
I love how you only bold genetics and ignore lifestyle in your quote, well done. Now more from your source site:

Quote:
What Leads to Diabetes?

Type 1 and type 2 diabetes have different causes. Yet two factors are important in both. You inherit a predisposition to the disease then something in your environment triggers it.

Genes alone are not enough. One proof of this is identical twins. Identical twins have identical genes. Yet when one twin has type 1 diabetes, the other gets the disease at most only half the time. When one twin has type 2 diabetes, the other's risk is at most 3 in 4.

.................................................. ............

Type 2 Diabetes

Type 2 diabetes has a stronger link to family history and lineage than type 1, although it too depends on environmental factors. Studies of twins have shown that genetics play a very strong role in the development of type 2 diabetes. Lifestyle also influences the development of type 2 diabetes. Obesity tends to run in families, and families tend to have similar eating and exercise habits.

If you have a family history of type 2 diabetes, it may be difficult to figure out whether your diabetes is due to lifestyle factors or genetic susceptibility. Most likely it is due to both. However, don’t lose heart. Studies show that it is possible to delay or prevent type 2 diabetes by exercising and losing weight.
Woops.

Doppler Drift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 09:01 PM
  #150
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Hugh Mann. Here is an interesting concept.

Its called personal responsibility. I pay for my own health insurance that covers myself and my family. YOU have no worries about paying for my health care.

And it figures that you support authoritarian rules from the idiot Bloomberg with your statement of consuming more health care resources than necessary. You arrogant piece of ****.

What about you? Should we send someone from HHS to your house to look over your shoulder? Should we have someone from HHS come by and deny service to your son or your daughter or your gay lover or your mother or your father because some "bureaucrat" decides that "you have used up all of the resources allocated to YOU".

Its all fine advocating authoritarian rules as long as it does not affect YOU. But sad to say, Progressives as yourself will be facing what the rest of America will be facing if/when we go down the road of "allocated resource utilization" and healthcare.

Stay healthy and remember, people who avoid sugar and fatty foods and Big Gulps still end up in the hospital "one day".
Sure he does. If more people lead unhealthy lives they are much more likely to develop conditions that require extensive and sometimes lifetime treatments. That mean the insurance companies will pay more out. That means increased premiums for everyone. You really should quit debating financial matters you are in way over your head.

Doppler Drift is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.