BF2S Forums California Bans Trans Fat From Restaurant Food

topal63 wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

topal63 wrote:

There is a ZERO point ZERO chance I'd do that (check). I don't even care if they do serve me trans-fat. I am not at risk - I am thin and exercise regularly. I wouldn't even know the difference - and my health wouldn't be affected either.

Do you know how many athletes or otherwise healthy young people have dropped dead from massive heart attacks?

Source. And, please make it specific. Please demonstrate how many young healthy people who failed to check the restaurant menu for trans-fat dropped dead on the spot of a heart attack.

PS: I am 45.

He's refering to Sudden Arrhythmia Death Syndrome.  UK stats are 500 people a year die from it.  We have a population of 60mil.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/ … ult1.shtml

(you prob already know the above!)

You're misunderstanding me completely. It's no big deal.

earlier in this thread topal63 wrote:

I mean if they put arsenic in food because it was sort of tasty and someone came up with a substitute - you'ld be against banning arsenic in food served to the public. Just because the effects are accumulated over time doesn't mean it can't be a poison to your body (in this case to heart health among other things).

Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-26 13:09:55)

usmarine2 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

I cant understand why you people are making this so difficult.  When you pay for my health care, then you can tell me what to eat.  simple as that.  whats with the walls of text?

the healthier you are, the more you're capable to work and therefore legally obliged to pay tax.  It's no use to the state that everyone is a david.p lookalike.

maybe, but then why is fast food still around?

Profit and demand.  Although, without trans fats and with the proper lifestyle, eating at McDonald's a few times a week is ok.  You just don't want to do it like Morgan Spurlock did.

Trans fats are considerably different from all other fats in that your body doesn't exactly digest them in a normal fashion.  It's more like you just excrete them.

topal63 wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

the healthier you are, the more you're capable to work and therefore legally obliged to pay tax.  It's no use to the state that everyone is a david.p lookalike.

maybe, but then why is fast food still around?

I think obesity in America will continue to rise regardless of this (Calif.) social initiative.

its rising everywhere.

topal63 wrote:

You're misunderstanding me completely. It's no big deal.

earlier in this thread topal63 wrote:

I mean if they put arsenic in food because it was sort of tasty and someone came up with a substitute - you'ld be against banning arsenic in food served to the public. Just because the effects are accumulated over time doesn't mean it can't be a poison to your body (in this case to heart health among other things).

<------doesnt always read who wrote posts

My point is still valid though, that trans fats can kill an otherwise healthy person without any previous symptoms

usmarine2 wrote:

I cant understand why you people are making this so difficult.  When you pay for my health care, then you can tell me what to eat.  simple as that.  whats with the walls of text?

You mean your boss pays for it.

HurricaИe wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

I cant understand why you people are making this so difficult.  When you pay for my health care, then you can tell me what to eat.  simple as that.  whats with the walls of text?

You mean your boss pays for it.

Depends on your employer, and even then it's the company that pays for it not his boss...

by taking a percentage out of your base salary...


the issue is that poor people have health care coverage at taxpayer expense

S.Lythberg wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

You mean your boss pays for it.

Depends on your employer, and even then it's the company that pays for it not his boss...

by taking a percentage out of your base salary...

A small affordable percentage which is much easier than paying for it all yourself.

paul386 wrote:

ATG wrote:

I say we have bigger problems;

http://www.property-casualty.com/IllegalAliens.jpg

If you don't understand the severity of this than you are a bit naive. It starts with things like smoking bans and then these kind of bans and it will eventually tumble into the government telling you when you can take a shit.

I have no problem with smoking bans, I do have a problem with this. Smoking affects the individual and all forced into breathing their smoke. Trans fat affects only the people eating it.

I do agree however, that this bill can have far reaching ramifications toward personal privacy intrusions....What is next, a ban on sugar?

m3thod wrote:

trans fats cause chronic problems in minute amounts.  Sugar doesn't.

Sugar can trigger diabetes, make you fat and cause heart problems, time for the govt. t orestrict our daily sugar intake apparently.

m3thod wrote:

lowing wrote:

m3thod wrote:

trans fats cause chronic problems in minute amounts.  Sugar doesn't.

Sugar can trigger diabetes, make you fat and cause heart problems, time for the govt. t orestrict our daily sugar intake apparently.

Sugar doesnt trigger diabities/chronic problems in minute amounts.

Ok, eat sugar all ya want to the point where your body can not keep up with the production of insulin and see where ya go from there.

If nothing else, sugar ca ncause wieght problems and that can lead to diabetes. Witherway, my point is obvious regardless if you want to acknowledge it or not.

lowing wrote:

m3thod wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sugar can trigger diabetes, make you fat and cause heart problems, time for the govt. t orestrict our daily sugar intake apparently.

Sugar doesnt trigger diabities/chronic problems in minute amounts.

Ok, eat sugar all ya want to the point where your body can not keep up with the production of insulin and see where ya go from there.

If nothing else, sugar ca ncause wieght problems and that can lead to diabetes. Witherway, my point is obvious regardless if you want to acknowledge it or not.

Except that 5g of trans fat is more harmful than 5g of sugar

In extreme terms, it's like comparing arsenic to red Fiestaware plates. Sure the fiestaware is radioactive, but in minute amounts.

lowing wrote:

m3thod wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sugar can trigger diabetes, make you fat and cause heart problems, time for the govt. t orestrict our daily sugar intake apparently.

Sugar doesnt trigger diabities/chronic problems in minute amounts.

Ok, eat sugar all ya want to the point where your body can not keep up with the production of insulin and see where ya go from there.

If nothing else, sugar ca ncause wieght problems and that can lead to diabetes. Witherway, my point is obvious regardless if you want to acknowledge it or not.

/facedesk /facedesk /facedesk

I see your point, in fact its so well known, parading it around is frankly poinltess.  It's like telling me the sun is round, so err thanks. 

The point i am trying get across is there is a very clear disctinction with the health problems asscociated with trans fats and sugar and that is one of the quantity of intake. 

Eating trans fats even in MINUTE portions such as approx 1-3% of you daily calorie intake has been demonstrated to potentially lead to some very serious ramifications regarding your health such as chronic heart problems.  This cannot be said for sugar.  Sugar in minute doses will not lead to diaibities, glucoma, kidney failure etc.  Now if you want to eat 10lbs of sugar a day well gee i guess you fucking deserve the diabities then don't you?

Last edited by m3thod (2008-07-26 15:57:34)