CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Nutrition
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Nutrition Diet, supplements, weightloss, health & longevity

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-28-2008, 05:30 AM   #21
Matthew Green
Member Matthew Green is offline
 
Matthew Green's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Liverpool  England
Posts: 1,681
Re: California bans trans fats

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Epstein View Post
Im not sure how the health system works in the US, but over here smoking (and arguably consumption of trans fats) definitely puts strain on the health system which ends up costing tax payers more and uses up more of a limited resource (doctors time). Legislation looks to protect the rights of the people against the actions of others.

Maybe people who smoke and eat trans fats should just be refused any medical service but to me thats verging more on facism than banning those things up front.
A 'healthy' person who lives to a ripe old age and suffers from all types of ailments associated with ageing actually costs a government more than one who dies early from smoking/CHD. Can dig up the study if anyone is interested, it's somewhere in the vast un-organised depths of my computer.
__________________
'Going Green' 6'2" 194lbs
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 05:54 AM   #22
Matthew Green
Member Matthew Green is offline
 
Matthew Green's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Liverpool  England
Posts: 1,681
Re: California bans trans fats

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...d.0050029&ct=1 WFS
__________________
'Going Green' 6'2" 194lbs
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 07:36 AM   #23
Jake Dent
Member Jake Dent is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stafford  Virginia
Posts: 243
Re: California bans trans fats

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Reyes View Post
I dont know...i think at some point it's good for an entity like the government to step in and regulate or outlaw things that are, universally accepted as, being detrimental to the overall health or well being of its citizens.

Granted, this kind of law is much too late, especially with all the damage that trans fat have already caused since their inception and adoption into the food industry years ago.
It's a slippery slippery slope my friend.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 01:26 PM   #24
Jamie J. Skibicki
Member Jamie J. Skibicki is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pittsburgh  PA
Posts: 8,841
Re: California bans trans fats

And yes, I do believe recreational drugs should be legalized, but thats mostly to reduce the effect of organized crime. What if someone decides squatting below paralelle is harmful (as most doctors will tell you) and they ban that. Is that good? The Navy suggested Crossfit is not a good way to get in shape and has an official stance against it. Be careful about what you allow to be banned, since what you like may be next.

"A government big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take it away."
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 02:01 PM   #25
Keenan Lightner
Member Keenan Lightner is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rogers  AR
Posts: 63
Re: California bans trans fats

I wonder if this thread is teetering on "too political"?

But I am excited to see how many individuals are passionate about fighting against the Nanny State.

The markets could control the control trans fats if it is absolutely necessary. They are too quick to dismiss us as idiot consumers that cannot think for ourselves.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 05:14 PM   #26
Daniel Barulich
Member Daniel Barulich is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Los Angeles  Ca
Posts: 56
Re: California bans trans fats

Everybody is reading too far into this. The solution is undeniably simple: Ban fat people. Legislate right to the source. Why prance around the issue and try to get partial legislation when we can just ban the fatties entirely? First California, then New York, next Massachusetts, then America, next, the world. Through this progressive new legislation we can end the obesity crisis by targeting the actual causation of the crisis: Obese people.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 06:51 PM   #27
Bart Hodlik
Member Bart Hodlik is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Diego  CA
Posts: 231
Re: California bans trans fats

I have to agree with Keenan, on this topic getting a little too political.
But I will say that the purpose of my original post, is get people thinking about the causes and potential solutions to the epidemic in the US.
We are a nation of FAT PEOPLE! Simply saying that the economy will eventually weed it out, or that people will somehow wake up magically and realize their mistake is simply not going to happen.
On the issue of smoking and it being banned. Going in to a restaurant, and having seperate smoking and non-smoking sections has never worked. For the person who does not smoke, but is a waiter or waitress at said restaurants, does the seperate seating do them any good? Not to mention you could be on the other side of the restaurant as a customer, and STILL be enveloped by it. You know how great it is, to come home from a club or bar, NOT reaking of a chimney stack? Any number of studies have shown us that second hand smoking is far worse than the idiot who is smoking to begin with.
People simply do not do the right thing, unless they are held accountable for it, or there is a penalty for not doing the right thing.
So while I agree that some things are simply over-legislated, there are some things in this world that need a push to get everyone on the right track. Which was the point of me posting to begin with.
Consumers are idiots... Look at all of us on this board. At one point or another in our lives we bought in to what was said to be healthy. Then we discovered something new, something truthful, and viola... we tried it, and have become healthier than ever before. I for one used to have a belief in what was healthy, then I found Crossfit, and learned more about nutrition. Only to discover that corporations and various entities had skewed the truth over time to benefit themselves. So saying that consumers will eventually become smart, is a little naive. We all love CF, but honestly, we are still a drastic minority of truth in the ocean of mis-information.
Educating the masses would be a great step. However we run in to another problem with this. The "health" industry, as it relates to health products, supplements etc.. is largely unregulated. So again, do we not regulate here? How would you educate? Who would educate? Can you imagine the people clammering for the top, to be the "ones" to educate you? How about the companies that would lose billions of dollars, because now they have to prove their product? Or prove that they are right?
We could imagine the issues endlessly. Regulating CAN do some good. Especially when its targeted at benefitting everyone in the long run. Such as banning trans fats. It just needs to be monitored closely by the people.
__________________
Obsessed, is the word lazy people use to describe the dedicated. - Russel Warren
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 07:22 PM   #28
Kevin Mack
Member Kevin Mack is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Spokane  WA
Posts: 290
Re: California bans trans fats

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Hodlik View Post
On the issue of smoking and it being banned. Going in to a restaurant, and having seperate smoking and non-smoking sections has never worked. For the person who does not smoke, but is a waiter or waitress at said restaurants, does the seperate seating do them any good? Not to mention you could be on the other side of the restaurant as a customer, and STILL be enveloped by it. You know how great it is, to come home from a club or bar, NOT reaking of a chimney stack?
If you don't want to smell like smoke, don't go somewhere that allows it. If you don't want to be exposed to smoke don't work somewhere that allows it. Your choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Hodlik View Post
Any number of studies have shown us that second hand smoking is far worse than the idiot who is smoking to begin with.
Any number of studies have suggested, not shown. Also, see solution above. I'm not trying to antagonize, I just want to emphasize my point that these things are all a matter of choice on your part, not the part of the smoker or the fatty or McDonalds or the government. Until people take accountability for their own actions they will always want someone else to fix it for them. That's not politics, it is human nature.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 07:37 PM   #29
Bart Hodlik
Member Bart Hodlik is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Diego  CA
Posts: 231
Re: California bans trans fats

Kevin,
While I agree with you completely that it is a matter of choice in going to places that cater to your likes, it is also irrational to believe that, for example, in the state of California prior to the ban on public smoking that you could go anywhere where that was possible. Its a double-edged sword I think. On one side, I'd gladly say that smokers should have their freedom to smoke themselves to death, in turn giving me more oxygen to breathe. However I should also not be infringed upon in looking out for my own health. And again, it falls on the issue that people are generally stupid and will not change their habits unless forced to. If everyone was intelligent enough, when the dangers associated to smoking came to light, everyone would have given it up. In fact they did not. There are still people who know full well the health risks, and continue to do it anyway. Its their choice yes, but I sure as am not going to have my tax dollars wasted on their stupidity.
And yes, I whole heartedly agree that its human nature. The problem though, is that it is human nature. Pick any number of topics over the history of humans, and we see the same repitition of behavior. People as a whole have to be pushed in to the better path.

Of note too, your first quote of my previous post didn't address the issue of someone working at the restaurant. So how is that aspect to be dealt with? Suck it up or go work somewhere else? That doesn't work either.
__________________
Obsessed, is the word lazy people use to describe the dedicated. - Russel Warren

Last edited by Bart Hodlik : 07-28-2008 at 07:39 PM. Reason: Added something
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 07:45 PM   #30
Derek Maffett
Member Derek Maffett is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Castle Rock  WA
Posts: 3,544
Re: California bans trans fats

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Hodlik View Post
It just needs to be monitored closely by the people.
So:

1. Most people do the wrong thing and need a good kick in the pants to do the right thing.

2. The ones to administer that kick are the smart minority/government.

3. The kicked and stupid majority needs to closely monitor the government which did the kicking so that it doesn't kick them too much.

4. Repeat steps 1-3 ad nauseum until government stops pretending that #3 exists because obviously it isn't doing a lick of good based on the fact that steps #1 and #2 worked in the first place. Step #1 becomes increasingly corrupted.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Agoura, California Craig Bravman In Search of CrossFitters 0 05-03-2008 09:34 PM
New York City may ban 'hazardous' trans fats Kevin McKay Nutrition 12 10-03-2006 07:52 AM
Trans Fat in GF Ground Beef at Trader Joe's Mike Minium Nutrition 3 06-16-2006 12:24 PM
Denmark bans trans fats!!! Tyler Hass Nutrition 0 05-06-2003 02:03 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.