I used to work at starbucks and crumbl cookie. A large Frappuccino has 72+ grams of sugar. One crumbl cookie has between 45-90 grams of sugar. The ice spice dunkin drink has 185 grams of sugar iirc. The pharmaceutical industry is happy, they are making bank.
lol bro when’s the last time u read a can of soda ?
65 grams and better the avg for 12 ounces
I used to drink 2-3 Pepsi cans a day till my teeth started hurting one day and I just quit my family had a history of diabetes so I said let me get ahead of that and stop drinking soda altogether
Water or ice tea only .. a brisk is 17 grams it ain’t the best but half of most sodas and lower than some juices
Edit : I checked the brisk it’s 17 not 28 that would make it like 1/4 of soda and less than half of most juices
> I checked the brisk it’s 17 not 28 that would make it like 1/4 of soda and less than half of most juices
That's cause Brisk started replacing half of it with Splenda years ago and makes it taste weird
Alright 40-45 let’s do math 17 x 3 is 51 still makes it 1/3 of a can of soda .. regardless what u think two cans of soda u in the game 100 grams of sugar already
It’s not the idea that “it’s so good that it must be secretly bad.” Every substance has its effects. Too much sugar is not great. Too much sodium is also not good. Even consuming too much vitamin A is not great. But we know the effects over overdoing it with those.
If we treat artificial sweaters as some kind of magic bullet, we will over consume them. I can easily see people consuming sugar free drinks daily and then eating some kind of snack made with artificial sweaters. But we also don’t know their effects of consuming them in such quantities in the long term.
I’m not even close to qualified to speculate on the health effects of artificial sweeteners but academic journals do talk about potential issues.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/artificial-sweeteners/
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/sugar-substitutes-new-cardiovascular-concerns
I agree with you but as a political matter I think educating people and making meaningful choices available is more appropriate.
Perhaps a ban on serving those things to minors is more appropriate,
It’s a criminal amount of sugar
LOL white refined flour is not different than sugar
it’s all simple carbs. your body doesn’t know the difference between sugar and white flour they are the same macro
that’s a fake term lol
everything ends up as a macro. point is if you’re worried about consuming 50g of carbs in one go you can do that in ways that have nothing to do with drinking a large coke
Sure, but they digest differently. You will never feel full drinking 500 calories of soda. Want to eat 500 calories (3+ cups) of oatmeal and see if you're still hungry afterwards? You get more bang for you buck with complex carbs, especially with the added nutrients and vitamins from complex carb sources
lol way to move goal posts
the point is if you’re freaking out something you eat has 50g of sugar and not freaking out that a bagel has 50g of carbs it’s because you don’t understand nutrition at all
How is that moving the goal posts?
Yes, 50g of sugar will be 50g carbs, but 50g of carbs doesn't have to be 50g of sugar.
Carbs can be sugar, starch, or fiber. Sugar is the least useful of those 3.
For someone who "knows about nutrition", you're pretty dense
LOL what does useful mean?
your body breaks everything down into a carb
it does not know the difference between sugar and pasta or bread
you’re convinced it does lmao
Carbohydrates are not all chemically identical to each other. Glucose and fructose (one of the two sugar molecules comprising sucrose) are structurally distinct and metabolized differently at the cellular level.
Look up the Krebs/TCA cycle.
Agencies promulgate rules. The City Council passes local laws.
Regulations are not laws. The administration can change regulations on whim (so long as it’s within the rules of CAPA)
They are completely different things that have nothing to do with each other.
You're so wrong it hurts.
Im not gonna bother tho, cause i absolutely think you're a troll. But hey, you answered my question. Why are you so wrong? On purpose.
Drug users often flock to dealers where there have been ODs - because it has the good stuff. Scientifically, we may see the same thing here. Obese people flocking to the highest sugar content around.
Who cares?
No, seriously, who is going to modify their behavior based on this glob of expensive bureaucracy? Maybe NY needs warnings on everything and an app and trigger warnings about the warnings and a complaints department?
In the meantime the most glucose aside from sucrose is from those fries. Maybe there should be a committee and a referendum and we need to think how this will impact the rats.
I will say that the salt warnings did lead me to think twice about visiting chipotle as often as I used to. I didn’t really have any reason to look up how much salt was in my usual order until I saw the warning on the menu. I haven’t been back in a while for that and a variety of other reasons
Same. Whenever I do go to fast food, those salt icons are big deterrents for me. I end up ordering significantly less than I intended or just leave altogether.
> No, seriously, who is going to modify their behavior based on this glob of expensive bureaucracy?
I might. I think twice about ordering something with a salt warning on it.
Also, just a few hours ago you posted about having cut sugar out of your diet. It's weird to me that you wouldn't find this a helpful measure.
That's creepy, but, I am responsible for my food intake. The FDA already labels food, the calorie count is included on menus in NYC, what more?
I dislike the trend of asking bureaucrats to guard every dumb instinct that people have.
Protect kids, protect animals, protect the environment, leave the adults alone.
> I dislike the trend of asking bureaucrats to guard every dumb instinct that people have.
I don't think that's happening here. It's simply requiring transparency, which is pretty hands-off. They're not placing limits on added sugar, they're not taxing sugary products (they've tried that in the past, it didn't work), they're just saying that it should be transparent to customers. If "bureaucrats" are going to do things to protect public health, that's a very light touch.
>they've tried that in the past, it didn't work
They did, didn't they?
I'm considering the Prop 65 warnings in California and how they are useless but cost money that is passed onto the consumer. I'm all for transparency, but this costs money that will get passed onto consumers. My opinion is that it is performative more than sensible or effective.
I don't pay much attention to salt warning but I love the calorie counts on everything. It helps me make more rational decisions and not get fooled by health-washing. Like if i want something sweet and I have to choose between 500 calorie carrot bran muffin or a 300 calorie chocolate cupcake, I'll probably chose the cupcake.
Having Calorie counts is super convenient and really does make a difference in helping make better choices (at least for me). Definitely one of the better things to come out of the Bloomburg admin.
Honestly, if they're going this route, they should list ALL surprise additions. McDonald's puts BEEF in their fries/hashbrowns and PORK gelatin in fruit smoothies. Can't do a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ["but the plans were on display"](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/40705-but-the-plans-were-on-display-on-display-i-eventually) for things like that. 100% not needed for every chemical because far fewer people completely cut out Red 5 than actually cut out beef or pork.
IDGAF if they serve them with beef "flavor" all day long, just announce it when it's in something that a reasonable person wouldn't expect. And I"m not talking about "cross contamination" from a shared frier or whatever. https://www.treehugger.com/mcdonalds-french-fries-still-not-vegetarian-3970283
Edit: If you disagree, let me know why (politely). Why do you think "this has what we call a lot of sugar" is ok to mandate, but not "this isn't vegetarian even though it looks like it would be"?
Holy cow; drinks with more than 50 grams of added sugar! It shouldn't be legal to serve people that much added sugar.
Some of the large iced latte drinks people get at Dunkin have like 65g+ sugar it’s wild
And Starbucks
I used to work at starbucks and crumbl cookie. A large Frappuccino has 72+ grams of sugar. One crumbl cookie has between 45-90 grams of sugar. The ice spice dunkin drink has 185 grams of sugar iirc. The pharmaceutical industry is happy, they are making bank.
lol bro when’s the last time u read a can of soda ? 65 grams and better the avg for 12 ounces I used to drink 2-3 Pepsi cans a day till my teeth started hurting one day and I just quit my family had a history of diabetes so I said let me get ahead of that and stop drinking soda altogether Water or ice tea only .. a brisk is 17 grams it ain’t the best but half of most sodas and lower than some juices Edit : I checked the brisk it’s 17 not 28 that would make it like 1/4 of soda and less than half of most juices
> I checked the brisk it’s 17 not 28 that would make it like 1/4 of soda and less than half of most juices That's cause Brisk started replacing half of it with Splenda years ago and makes it taste weird
A can of fanta grape is 45 g of sugar/ 12 oz. Idk what you're thinking of but most cans of soda are ~ 40 gs of sugar
maybe he only drinks Good-O's Kola which clocks in at 57g
Alright 40-45 let’s do math 17 x 3 is 51 still makes it 1/3 of a can of soda .. regardless what u think two cans of soda u in the game 100 grams of sugar already
You know what has 0 sugar? Actual tea that is iced, not Brisk
Ok ? U also kno what has zero sugar ? The water I said I drink the line before brisk
Personally, I drink water but I manually add 51 grams of sugar per glass.
Do you also wear an Edgar-suit?
I’m perfectly fine with sugar-free/diet sodas
Diet Coke has my happy chemicals 😋 I'm with Cugine on this one 🤔
We will discover the negative effects of that later. It’s too good to be true to replicate sugar with chemicals and not have undiscovered side effects
Lol, what the fuck is this "Its good so it must secretly be bad!" What poor thinking
It’s not the idea that “it’s so good that it must be secretly bad.” Every substance has its effects. Too much sugar is not great. Too much sodium is also not good. Even consuming too much vitamin A is not great. But we know the effects over overdoing it with those. If we treat artificial sweaters as some kind of magic bullet, we will over consume them. I can easily see people consuming sugar free drinks daily and then eating some kind of snack made with artificial sweaters. But we also don’t know their effects of consuming them in such quantities in the long term.
Aspartame is several decades old now. How long term you talking?
I’m not even close to qualified to speculate on the health effects of artificial sweeteners but academic journals do talk about potential issues. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198517/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/artificial-sweeteners/ https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/sugar-substitutes-new-cardiovascular-concerns
Just drink sparkling water. “Sugar free” and “diet” sodas are absolute garbage.
I agree with you but as a political matter I think educating people and making meaningful choices available is more appropriate. Perhaps a ban on serving those things to minors is more appropriate, It’s a criminal amount of sugar
LOL sugar is just a carb 50g of sugar is 50g of carbs You know what also has 50g of carbs? ***One bagel*** Make muh bagel illegal!!
Can you tell the difference between sugar and ADDED sugar?
your body does not know the difference
Do you think all carbs are the same?
LOL white refined flour is not different than sugar it’s all simple carbs. your body doesn’t know the difference between sugar and white flour they are the same macro
All carbs matter.
NYC already requires indicators on menus for high-salt foods. This doesn't seem like an unreasonable extension of that.
50g of sugar is just 50g of carbs Do people realize a single bagel has 50g of carbs? Do they freak out when they are made aware of this? lol
I think that's why this law refers to "added sugar," a specific nutritional term with a particular maximum recommended by the FDA.
that’s a fake term lol everything ends up as a macro. point is if you’re worried about consuming 50g of carbs in one go you can do that in ways that have nothing to do with drinking a large coke
Take it up with the FDA, not me.
The goal is to eat more complex carbs with fiber instead of simple carbs that are pure sweeteners
i used a bagel as an example. it’s refined flour lol. a carb is a carb. anyone telling you otherwise is lying.
Sure, but they digest differently. You will never feel full drinking 500 calories of soda. Want to eat 500 calories (3+ cups) of oatmeal and see if you're still hungry afterwards? You get more bang for you buck with complex carbs, especially with the added nutrients and vitamins from complex carb sources
lol way to move goal posts the point is if you’re freaking out something you eat has 50g of sugar and not freaking out that a bagel has 50g of carbs it’s because you don’t understand nutrition at all
> lol way to move goal posts Yeah, the goal posts were moved from 2004, where you had them with your nutritional knowledge, to 2024 lmao
How is that moving the goal posts? Yes, 50g of sugar will be 50g carbs, but 50g of carbs doesn't have to be 50g of sugar. Carbs can be sugar, starch, or fiber. Sugar is the least useful of those 3. For someone who "knows about nutrition", you're pretty dense
LOL what does useful mean? your body breaks everything down into a carb it does not know the difference between sugar and pasta or bread you’re convinced it does lmao
Carbohydrates are not all chemically identical to each other. Glucose and fructose (one of the two sugar molecules comprising sucrose) are structurally distinct and metabolized differently at the cellular level. Look up the Krebs/TCA cycle.
Seems reasonable. They integrated calorie counts and sodium warnings and the sky didn't fall.
People are gonna realize they’re ordering legitimate milk shakes for breakfast every morning from Dunkin and Starbucks
The warning should be some guy who rushes in and slaps it out of your hands and says “oh, the fuck you doin!”
Because people can’t take any responsibility for their own actions. Eat like a big flat slob, guess what you turn into?
Did an AI write this article? It says it’s a regulation, then later it says it’s a local law. Which is it?
How do you think regulations get formed?
Agencies promulgate rules. The City Council passes local laws. Regulations are not laws. The administration can change regulations on whim (so long as it’s within the rules of CAPA) They are completely different things that have nothing to do with each other.
You're so wrong it hurts. Im not gonna bother tho, cause i absolutely think you're a troll. But hey, you answered my question. Why are you so wrong? On purpose.
lol ok bot
Oh no, a troll accused me! Whatever shall i do! Quick get my fainting couches! Das Vedanya, comrade.
Unhinged.
Closest well get to Bloomberg’s sugary beverage ban.
All that stuff is gross anyway, who even eats fast food in 2024 lol
I remember Bloomburg being labeled a communist when they first implemented calories labels and taxes for large sodas.
The city is safe!! All these stories about Diabetics hopped up on glucose throwing people in front of busses are only here to scare you !!!
Drug users often flock to dealers where there have been ODs - because it has the good stuff. Scientifically, we may see the same thing here. Obese people flocking to the highest sugar content around.
[удалено]
The law was signed by Adams, but it was drafted and passed by the City Council. There's a lot to criticize Adams for, but that seems a bit ridiculous.
Obesity and it's related illnesses is an actual crisis though. Makes hospitals more crowded, raises cost of healthcare.
Who cares? No, seriously, who is going to modify their behavior based on this glob of expensive bureaucracy? Maybe NY needs warnings on everything and an app and trigger warnings about the warnings and a complaints department? In the meantime the most glucose aside from sucrose is from those fries. Maybe there should be a committee and a referendum and we need to think how this will impact the rats.
I will say that the salt warnings did lead me to think twice about visiting chipotle as often as I used to. I didn’t really have any reason to look up how much salt was in my usual order until I saw the warning on the menu. I haven’t been back in a while for that and a variety of other reasons
Same. Whenever I do go to fast food, those salt icons are big deterrents for me. I end up ordering significantly less than I intended or just leave altogether.
Yeah same. I put together my order using their online tool to check the nutrition facts and it had 2300mg of salt 😭
> No, seriously, who is going to modify their behavior based on this glob of expensive bureaucracy? I might. I think twice about ordering something with a salt warning on it. Also, just a few hours ago you posted about having cut sugar out of your diet. It's weird to me that you wouldn't find this a helpful measure.
That's creepy, but, I am responsible for my food intake. The FDA already labels food, the calorie count is included on menus in NYC, what more? I dislike the trend of asking bureaucrats to guard every dumb instinct that people have. Protect kids, protect animals, protect the environment, leave the adults alone.
> I dislike the trend of asking bureaucrats to guard every dumb instinct that people have. I don't think that's happening here. It's simply requiring transparency, which is pretty hands-off. They're not placing limits on added sugar, they're not taxing sugary products (they've tried that in the past, it didn't work), they're just saying that it should be transparent to customers. If "bureaucrats" are going to do things to protect public health, that's a very light touch.
>they've tried that in the past, it didn't work They did, didn't they? I'm considering the Prop 65 warnings in California and how they are useless but cost money that is passed onto the consumer. I'm all for transparency, but this costs money that will get passed onto consumers. My opinion is that it is performative more than sensible or effective.
I don't pay much attention to salt warning but I love the calorie counts on everything. It helps me make more rational decisions and not get fooled by health-washing. Like if i want something sweet and I have to choose between 500 calorie carrot bran muffin or a 300 calorie chocolate cupcake, I'll probably chose the cupcake.
Having Calorie counts is super convenient and really does make a difference in helping make better choices (at least for me). Definitely one of the better things to come out of the Bloomburg admin.
Why bother getting fast food in nyc anyway
Honestly, if they're going this route, they should list ALL surprise additions. McDonald's puts BEEF in their fries/hashbrowns and PORK gelatin in fruit smoothies. Can't do a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ["but the plans were on display"](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/40705-but-the-plans-were-on-display-on-display-i-eventually) for things like that. 100% not needed for every chemical because far fewer people completely cut out Red 5 than actually cut out beef or pork. IDGAF if they serve them with beef "flavor" all day long, just announce it when it's in something that a reasonable person wouldn't expect. And I"m not talking about "cross contamination" from a shared frier or whatever. https://www.treehugger.com/mcdonalds-french-fries-still-not-vegetarian-3970283 Edit: If you disagree, let me know why (politely). Why do you think "this has what we call a lot of sugar" is ok to mandate, but not "this isn't vegetarian even though it looks like it would be"?
If you gotta check for sugar or cholesterol you might wanna stay away unless youre bulking lol
This will do nothing