katy wrote:


What I don't understand is why they don't convert the sugar to Splenda,


Splenda?

I'd rather eat earthworms with Vegamite served in a cedar bucket.


//Walt

It's also the result of the profit motive: large
corporations are making lots of money convincing Americans
to eat more, thus becoming larger corporally.


Frank Boettcher wrote:
With all due respect, please elaborate on this. They advertise their
offerings, healthy or not, but, how do they convince Americans to eat
more?

???

This is like saying "Yes boats are bouyant and they float,
but how do they stay on top of the water?"

Statistically speaking, advertising works. Spend a bazillion
advertising on the Super Bowl, increase sales two bazillion.
Galbraith spoke quite a bit about this.

Plus, as you observe, it's not totally a question of eating
more, but what you eat and what activites you pursue.


... I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an
emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls
life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify.

Sure. I would be better for losing a few pounds myself.

Hunger is basic drive, I don't think people must have a
screw loose to over eat. OTOH to stuff oneself with all
sorts of unhealthy things can best be explained by social
norms... it's what everybody else is doing...


... Corporate
America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that
our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some
individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that
folly.


Agreed. And it used to be a common value, everybody "just
knew" that advertising was mostly lies, or at best
exaggerations. Nowadays people get offended if you question
advertised claims of products they like.



Be back later, have to run, weather's right. Planning 6.3 today. Run
30-36 miles per week. A much better solution than more regulation.

If your feet & knees can take it, yes it is.



... I
can, as you might expect, eat anything and don't gain any weight.
But, I naturally choose to avoid those things that are not good, or
more aptly, provide no room for them by choosing those that are good.
(Scotty, Spam doesn't qualify)

You just haven't had it when it's cooked right.



... I don't need the Government to tell me
what they are.

Well, nobody should, but the American parent has abdicated
to the TV and nobody can make a profit by telling you what's
healthy. Kind of the same way nobody ever lobbies Congress
to spend *less* money on any given issue.


... After all, they gave you fifty years of fake butter
with trans fats as a better choice than the real thing. And had eggs
on the taboo list for many years.


And you know what? They didn't fool me with that, not for
one minute.

DSK

Dave wrote:
Before I begin, let me say I couldn't agree with you more that tariffs on
sugar, like tariffs on most if not all goods are poor policy and should be
abandoned.


Agreeing with a condemned libby-rull? Wow Dave you're
sliding down in the world.


.... sugar is an good that creates
it's own demand. The more of it people eat, the more they
want, and there is a very high upper limit on that
consumption...


The first sentence is utter nonsense. Nothing creates its own demand.

Well, it's an observable fact. Deny it all you want, doesn't
change a thing.


... What
you mean to say is that the demand curve is relatively flat.

Not at all. If I meant to say that, that's what I would have
said.

... That is,
increasing the price by any given amount has only a small impact on the
quantity demanded.


What you're groping towards is a definition of elasticy vs
inelasticity.

But that's not the case. Refined sugar is a relatively new
product. They've known how to make it for centruies, since
cultivation of cane sugar was known. But it wasn't until
well into the industrial age that people acquired a taste
for it.

Add to this, the huge number of market studies of sugary
foods & drinks... there is no effective upper limit & people
who buy them tend to buy more. In fact, I can think of two
studies I've read the briefs on, wherein families given free
sugary products went out and tripled their purchase of
similar goods immediately after the study ended.

Finally, let me refer you to Say's Law.


Addressing the second point, if sugar sellers could maximize
their profit by reducing prices so as to increase
consumption, why would they lobby to have a tariff barrier
in the first place?


Because the tariff shifts the supply curve by eliminating from the market
those foreign sellers whose marginal cost exceeds the free market price plus
tariff.


But the shift of the supply curve doesn't change the demand,
and it doesn't change the shape of the curve. You're missing
the basic point that the supply curves & demand curves for
sugar... for a population that is accustomed to consuming
it... is not the traditional slightly curved X shape from
Econ 101.



Remember that funny graph with two lines making an X in the middle of it? A
bit old-fashioned, no doubt.

And not particularly accurate in reflecting this particular
situation.


Tell me where I'm wrong.

Wrong? Well, telling me "nonsense" is wrong. But your
description of price effects & demand response is inaccurate.

DSK

katysails wrote:
What I don't understand is why they don't convert the sugar to Splenda,


Walt wrote:
Splenda?

I'd rather eat earthworms with Vegamite served in a cedar bucket.


With squirty cheese on top.

DSK

Walt wrote:
katy wrote:


What I don't understand is why they don't convert the sugar to Splenda,



Splenda?

I'd rather eat earthworms with Vegamite served in a cedar bucket.


//Walt

I've substituted Splenda in many recipes that I've served people and
they never knew it wasn't sugar...

DSK wrote:
katysails wrote:

What I don't understand is why they don't convert the sugar to Splenda,



Walt wrote:

Splenda?

I'd rather eat earthworms with Vegamite served in a cedar bucket.


With squirty cheese on top.

DSK


If you were saying Natrasweet or saccharin, I could understand...SPlenda
does not have a chemical aftertaste and withstands temperature change,
which Nutrasweet does not...and it doesn't convert to formaldehyde like
Nutrasweet...

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:51:31 -0500, DSK wrote:

It's also the result of the profit motive: large
corporations are making lots of money convincing Americans
to eat more, thus becoming larger corporally.


Frank Boettcher wrote:
With all due respect, please elaborate on this. They advertise their
offerings, healthy or not, but, how do they convince Americans to eat
more?

???

This is like saying "Yes boats are bouyant and they float,
but how do they stay on top of the water?"

Not a good analogy. Advertising your wares as a choice among others
does not cause an individual to buy and use"too" much of that
particular commodity just because it is advertised.

Statistically speaking, advertising works. Spend a bazillion
advertising on the Super Bowl, increase sales two bazillion.
Galbraith spoke quite a bit about this.

Plus, as you observe, it's not totally a question of eating
more, but what you eat and what activites you pursue.


... I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an
emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls
life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify.

Sure. I would be better for losing a few pounds myself.

Hunger is basic drive, I don't think people must have a
screw loose to over eat. OTOH to stuff oneself with all
sorts of unhealthy things can best be explained by social
norms... it's what everybody else is doing...


... Corporate
America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that
our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some
individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that
folly.


Agreed. And it used to be a common value, everybody "just
knew" that advertising was mostly lies, or at best
exaggerations. Nowadays people get offended if you question
advertised claims of products they like.

Not me. I don't believe any of them.



Be back later, have to run, weather's right. Planning 6.3 today. Run
30-36 miles per week. A much better solution than more regulation.

If your feet & knees can take it, yes it is.

I'm back. Went 7 because I felt good. That's how I do it. set a
target mileage and then increase or decrease it based on how I feel.

Lot's of recent studies that dispel the old myth that runners end up
with deteriorating joints. Many more recent studies indicate that
running strengthens the tendons and muscles around a joint offering it
protection from deterioration and the onset of arthritic conditions.
At worst the scale tips to nuetral on joints and with the other health
benefits......



... I
can, as you might expect, eat anything and don't gain any weight.
But, I naturally choose to avoid those things that are not good, or
more aptly, provide no room for them by choosing those that are good.
(Scotty, Spam doesn't qualify)

You just haven't had it when it's cooked right.



... I don't need the Government to tell me
what they are.

Well, nobody should, but the American parent has abdicated
to the TV and nobody can make a profit by telling you what's
healthy. Kind of the same way nobody ever lobbies Congress
to spend *less* money on any given issue.


... After all, they gave you fifty years of fake butter
with trans fats as a better choice than the real thing. And had eggs
on the taboo list for many years.


And you know what? They didn't fool me with that, not for
one minute.

DSK

Frank Boettcher wrote:
... Advertising your wares as a choice among others
does not cause an individual to buy and use"too" much of that
particular commodity just because it is advertised.


Sure. Who the heck does that? Advertises their product "as a
choice among others" that is. And a given advertisement may
or may not work on any given individual.

However, if you truly believe that the millions of dollars
Anheuser-Busch Corp spends on advertising has nothing to do
with the hundreds of millions of dollars that large numbers
of people spend on Budweiser, then you need to take a good
look at the world around you.




Lot's of recent studies that dispel the old myth that runners end up
with deteriorating joints. Many more recent studies indicate that
running strengthens the tendons and muscles around a joint offering it
protection from deterioration and the onset of arthritic conditions.
At worst the scale tips to nuetral on joints and with the other health
benefits......


Maybe yes, maybe no. Personally, I know a lot of runners...
some my age, and some younger... who are suffering badly
from deteriorating feet & knees. Maybe it's a coincidence.
Are you taking glucosamine?

DSK

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:32:31 -0500, katy
wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:



How about letting individuals be less subjected to food
I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an
emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls
life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify. Corporate
America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that
our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some
individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that
folly.

The middle aged, soon to be aged baby-boomers, were the resylts of
people who lived through the Depression who had lack of food and lack if
choice to live with...when I was a kid, we HAD to clean out plates (no
matter how much was put on them) and were often enjoined that there were
many who did not have food in the world...could never figure out how my
eating tuna casserole helped some starving person in China...I was all
for packing the stuff up and shipping it to Taiwan...



My Grandmothers were both depression mothers who used the same tactics
on my parents. Fortunately, they had had enough of it and let us just
eat till we were full. Their contribution to nutrition was not being
well to do. In the late forties and fifties, when I was a kid, things
processed and emerging junk foods cost more than simple and live
foods. With six kids in the family they just didn't buy them so we
ate a healthy diet by default.

Today, everyone can afford junk food. That may be too bad.

What's wrong with Tuna Casserole? I like the stuff.

Frank

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:50:52 -0500, DSK wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
... Advertising your wares as a choice among others
does not cause an individual to buy and use"too" much of that
particular commodity just because it is advertised.


Sure. Who the heck does that? Advertises their product "as a
choice among others" that is. And a given advertisement may
or may not work on any given individual.

However, if you truly believe that the millions of dollars
Anheuser-Busch Corp spends on advertising has nothing to do
with the hundreds of millions of dollars that large numbers
of people spend on Budweiser, then you need to take a good
look at the world around you.

Sure it does, they are making a choice between Budweiser, Miller,
Coors, Sam Adams, etc... The advertising doesn't necessarily make them
buy or consume more beer.




Lot's of recent studies that dispel the old myth that runners end up
with deteriorating joints. Many more recent studies indicate that
running strengthens the tendons and muscles around a joint offering it
protection from deterioration and the onset of arthritic conditions.
At worst the scale tips to nuetral on joints and with the other health
benefits......


Maybe yes, maybe no. Personally, I know a lot of runners...
some my age, and some younger... who are suffering badly
from deteriorating feet & knees. Maybe it's a coincidence.
Are you taking glucosamine?

No, I'm not (taking glucosamine), although I think it may be
beneficial.

And I only have the studies, my personal history, and individuals in
the local running community who mirror the studies positive findings
to go by. Could be the chicken and the egg. Those who don't have
problems keep running, those that do, stop, and the studies only look
at current runners.

I never thought about it much, however my mother kept calling worrying
about the same thing, so I started to look for studies to send her.
It worked, she no longer worries about it.

Frank


DSK