Tax on Sugary Food and the Food of Cancer, Obesity and Diabetes

These are two seemingly separate and distinct issues but when you stop and think about them, they have a lot in common.

A recent article in the NY Times discussed the idea of placing taxes on sugary beverages in an effort to curb obesity. While it is true that increased sugar consumption is by far the fastest and quite frankly, the only way to become obese, what's next? A fat tax? An exercise too little tax?

To reduce their circumferential measures, people need to be educated, not taxed.

The proposition of a tax to curb obesity is just our governments way of saying "You Americans are too weak of will and stupid to control yourselves, and we're too lazy and dumb to educate you so, we'll just tax you and profit by it instead." So what else is new.

Lightbulb: What about a reward system rather than one of punishment? EX: If you keep your body weight within 20 pounds of your optimal body composition, you get an income tax reduction. And who cares HOW you do it? You can eat very healthfully and still have a Snickers bar, a can of ginger ale and be no worse for the wear but heavenforfend! Not that I advocate eating this sort of fare, but hey - healthy is healthy. I enjoy my wine and I'm very healthy. Why can't someone enjoy a can of soda without being shaken down?

Here again we see the government looking for their lost keys where the light is better. The cure for obesity, diabetes and perhaps for most cancers and autoimmune disorders is to eat as we would before the advent of agriculture.

Animals in the wild do not get cancer. (Note added September 22nd 2009: What I mean to say by this is it is my opinion that animals in the wild that have no contact with man do not suffer from cancers. Some animals do get cancers in the wild, but it is suspected and theorized that these cancers are caused by environmental pollutants caused by man. Some are caused by viruses but these are rare.) They do not become obese, diabetic, asthmatic or arthritic. Only when humans invite them into their lives or influence their lives and habitats do these ills descend upon them. No, no - it's not because they don't live long enough in the wild to experience these problems. Young humans get cancer, fat and arthritic too.

By cracky, it's what we feed our pets and what we feed ourselves that may very well be THE cause of most of our ills and certainly increases them. We feed our animals and ourselves foods that would never be eaten in our natural habitats. Dog and cat foods are laden with carbohydrates (and other fillers) - a macronutrient that is entirely unnecessary in their diet (or ours for that matter). Carnivores, like us, do not need carbohydrates in any amount to survive and survive quite well, yet it is what the government food pyramid stresses as the main nutrient for humans and what is boasted in most if not all pet foods. I saw a dog food commercial the other day that said: "Now, with carrots and even oatmea!" Oatmeal - for a dog?

From the Dietary Reference Intake which is "a series of reports on the dietary reference values for the intake of nutrients by Americans and Canadians. They include details on the application of statistically valid methods and reviews the roles that macronutrients play in traditional deficiency diseases as well as chronic diseases." DRI's page 275:

"The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed."

There you have it sportsfans. We need zero carbohydrates in our diet yet carbohydratesmake up over 70% of the govenment food pyramid. Will someone please explain this to me?

Cancer, obesity, diabetes and arthritis do not float in the sky, land on and infect us. You can't breathe them in, get them from an insect or contract them from others. These ills are, for the most part, self inflicted. They arise from what we do and don't eat. FE: Cancer feeds on sugar. We've known this for decades. Carbohydrates are sugars. Remove the sugars and you remove the potential cause of and certainly the food for cancers. Yes my friends, it may very well be that simple. Sounds crazy, right? But why - why does it sound crazy? Stop and think about this for just a moment. Do animals in the wild get cancer? Become obese or diabetic? What do all of of these maladies have in common? The ingestion of excess sugar.

I believe that our society has no idea how brainwahsed and dumbed up and down we have become by clever marketing and advertising. Even Dr. Oz is telling people to eat oatmeal and shun meat. Would you put oatmeal into your dogs food bowl? Heck no. So then why are you putting it into yours - or your childs? Most answer that we are humans and dogs are dogs and thus we have different digestive systems. This is not exactly true.

Let's not tax sugary foods Mr. Obama (not that you're 100% for it). Let's instead educate people how dangerous sugar is in all its forms and put an end to the ills caused by this macronutrient once and for all. I am calling for a 3 month moratorium on sugar and grain based carbohydrates. Rather than all join hands and walk for the cure, let's instead join minds and eat for it.

Comments

[James Krieger, M.S., M.S.]

*********
James behaves like a classic troll.
**********

Ad hominem and irrelevant to the discussion.

***********
He NEEDS to belittle because he is insecure.
************

Ad hominem and irrelevant to the discussion.

I could be the biggest asshole in the world, but it's still not evidence that cancer in the wild is rare.

The fact is you are completely unable to debate without resorting to ad hominems...usually the sign of someone who does not have a valid argument. If your argument was valid, you could stick to the points and not have to question my motives.

**************
I explained my position on cancer in the wild over and over
**************

But over and over you are unable to provide scientific evidence to support your position

*************
What a normal human being does is privatley email someone and say "Hey Fred - I think you goofed up on the cancer issue. It appears that cancer can and does exist in wild animals that have had ZERO contact with mankind. Here's a link to...."
***************

What's the difference between doing privately or publically? Are you afraid of your errors being exposed publically?

And this was my first response to your blog post....

"This is false. Cancer strikes wild animals at similar rates to humans. For a review, see:

McAloose, D. & A.L. Newton. Wildlife cancer: a conservation perspective. Nature Reviews Cancer. 9:517-526, 2009"

How is that any different from saying you have appeared to make an error? How is this berating you or being a troll?

**************
I notice that neither you nor James are challenging the main gist of the blog post - that eating excess sugar in all it's forms be they candy or whole wheat -are the cause of obesity and diabetes.
****************

Because this has already been debated to death with you over on jpfitness and on your own forum. There is no point in starting that all over again here, particularly given your confirmation bias tendency, your inconsistent standards of evidence, and the way you completely dismiss or ignore evidence that doesn't fit with your beliefs.

[fred hahn]

One more thing - I notice that neither you nor James are challenging the main gist of the blog post - that eating excess sugar in all it's forms be they candy or whole wheat -are the cause of obesity and diabetes.

That's something to challenge. Challenge that obesity is not caused by eating too many calories. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accululaiton. That the energy balance equation is horribly misinterpreted. Challenge that type II diabetes is self-inflicted and is easily cured by reducing sugar intake to very low levels.

Ready? ;)

[fred hahn]

Thank you for your comment Mike. It's HOW James challenges, not that he does. Cancer was not the point of the post. The gist was far beyond whether or not animals get cancer away from man's influence. But I guess you missed that to.

James behaves like a classic troll. He NEEDS to belittle because he is insecure. It is he who is the one who is running around trying to save face. He realizes he is being petty and harping on a minor issue that is entirely beside the point of my post.

I explained my position on cancer in the wild over and over - to the point where most people would think I'm nuts and should just delete James posts. From my reading, cancer in the wild is rare and mostly if not entirely caused by man as is obesity and diabetes - the real point of the blog. We self inflict and can self heal and that sugar is more evil than most realize contributing to the life of cancers and to the development of obesity and type II diabetes. If my blog post was not clear enough and seemed to err on cancer in the wild, big deal.

What a normal human being does is privatley email someone and say "Hey Fred - I think you goofed up on the cancer issue. It appears that cancer can and does exist in wild animals that have had ZERO contact with mankind. Here's a link to...." Trolls and persons who operate in a world of negativity due to their own inner hatreds instead publicly attempt to belittle and embarrass not realizing that they hurt themselves the most.

I hope this is not you Mike.

[Joe]

Mike,

"A misinterpretation or minor half-truths I'm ok with . . .but when somebody consistently contorts science and has a glaring bias towards their absolutist ideals, I speak up."

I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel much safer knowing that you are out there policing the internet for us. Funny thing is, there's a lot of BS on the 'net, but I've only seen you "speak up" here. Whatever. . .

And while your posts, individually, may not be berating Fred, you piggy back off each other like the ambiguously expert duo. So, if if it makes you feel better to say "I'm just challenging him . . ." Fine.

I'm bored now. Sorry for going off topic.

Joe

[Mike]

Joe,

Curious comments.... A misinterpretation or minor half-truths I'm ok with. I don't want to speak for James here, but when somebody consistently contorts science and has a glaring bias towards their absolutist ideals, I speak up.

People should be welcoming the dialogue and dissenting opinions - I don't see this as anything but an "open discussion". I am challenging some of Fred's ideas - not berating him. If you find this childish, I don't know what to tell you.

I commend Fred for letting the comments stand, even when his ideas are being exposed as misguided.

[Joe]

Mike and James,

I think most of Fred's readers choose to read his blog because they value his opinion and welcome his perspective. Not you two, though. You troll along every post, looking for anything remotely inaccurate- just to prove him wrong. Like you need to protect the "dumb" readers from being hoodwinked or something. FYI . . . we'd be just fine without you!

Open discussion is great, but the childish banter and constant berating of Fred is ridiculous. It does not add value to the discussion, just comes out as B.S.,B.S. (even if your points are valid).

Fred, you have more patience than I. Good luck.

Joe

[Mike]

Fred,

You make blanket statements and get called on them. You are running around in desperation trying to save face.

Are you admitting then that cancer does in fact happen in the wild? This is a simple yes or no question.

Ans while it's great that you have fans like jeanie who would prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and not want to hear the whole story - it's great that people like James challenge you on your nonsensical claims.

Hopefully you are taking all of this in and will perhaps curb your unsubstantiated claims.

[James Krieger, M.S., M.S.]

*********
IOW, dinosaurs probably got cancer, cave men probably got cancer, and not ony was it not rare, it was common.
*************

Strawman. I never said it was common. I said the rates of cancer in the wild, overall, are unknown.

*********
Nothing I have read suggests this save for some fringe people who I suppose might be right.
************

"Fringe" people? I quoted scientists who actually do scientific research in this area. You have yet to point out any scientific research in this area.

************
The bulk of what I read suggests that cancer is caused by mankind.
***********

But strangely you cannot provide any scientific references to support this. For someone who constantly quotes Sagan and his "Science as a candle in the dark" quote, you don't use science to support your assertions.

You also again show your inconsistent standards of evidence. When I stated how scientists believe canine venereal sarcoma came from wolves up to 2,500 years ago (based on genetic evidence, mind you), you pointed out how they BELIEVE this, then speculated that it could've come from man.

Essentially, you criticize the scientists for speculating (even though their speculation is based on solid genetic evidence), yet you then speculate yourself (based on NO evidence).

The fact is, you have a low standard of evidence if it supports what you believe, but a high standard if it doesn't support what you believe....the perfect example of confirmation bias.

Oh, and the virus didn't come from man....because if it did, the genetic evidence would show this.

[fred hahn]

James - what is your problem my good man?

You want to say that cancer being caused by a virus exists in the wild affecting wild animals and man at random regarldess of huamn intervention. IOW, dinosaurs probably got cancer, cave men probably got cancer, and not ony was it not rare, it was common.

Nothing I have read suggests this save for some fringe people who I suppose might be right. The bulk of what I read suggests that cancer is caused by mankind. It is rampant in humans and not so in animals who are free from man's influence. The more we get involved the more cancer there is. That is the main point of my blog.

WE are the cause of most of our ills, not naure. And now please stop posting the same thing over and over again. Instead, take my offer to join the NMS Yahoo group where you can spend your time more productively.

[James Krieger, M.S., M.S.]

Of course pollution causes cancer. I never said it didn't.

My point is it doesn't cause ALL cancer (or even most cancers). My point is that you have no evidence that all cancer in the wild is man-made (or even most).

Certainly, pollution increases the risk of cancer in both man and animal. There is no doubt.

************
I am in agreement that cancers in wild animals are, by and large, caused by human intervention.
*************

The evidence you provided says nothing of the sort. It only shows that man contributes to cancer in the wild (which I never doubted). This does not mean that cancer in the wild is caused mostly by man. There's a big difference between these two concepts.

[fred hahn]

Human pollution causes cancer:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/208917?from=rss

Beluga Whales and cancer:

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/human-pollution-cancer-animals.html

Pollution causes cancer:

http://www.livescience.com/animals/060223_marine_diseases.html

I am in agreement that cancers in wild animals are, by and large, caused by human intervention.

That is the last I will say on it.

[Jeanie]

Fred, please, can you just block James? Please?

[fred hahn]

"Fred, thank you. I've been on low carb diets before. I know how they make me feel and I can most definitely eat 5,000 calories of fatty meat in a single day. I have no desire to test those waters again."

Chad I hate to say it but I have to - you are not being honest here at all. There is no way you can eat 5,000 calories a day of fat meat every day for days on end unless you are a very big person.

"I'm quite happy with the 75lbs that I've lost on a 50% carb diet."

Congrats on your fat loss success. Of course, you lowered your TOTAL carb intake from what you were eating before so eating a 50% carb diet tells us little.

If you lowered your calories and still ate 50% carbs, this doesn't mean you were eating a high carb diet. This is what most people don't realize. A lowered calorie diet is, by default, almost always a lower carb diet.

"I also have no illusions that you'd ever seriously rethink any of your positions on your own blog, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Best of luck!"

It depends on the issues. I used to preach and preach big time low fat, high carb, daily aerobics, free weights, balance training, etc. This was in 1984 - 1992 or so. Then I read Darden, Protein Power, GCBC, the works of Cordaun, Feinman, Volek, etc. and started to do HIT training, and eating paleo and my health skyrocketed as well as my lean mass.

IOW, I have changed my beliefs 360 degrees before. I am prepared to do it again if the evidence warrants it. If you have any evidence to suggest that eating carbs is better for fat loss and lean gains I would LOVE to read it.

[Chad Dukes]

Fred, thank you. I've been on low carb diets before. I know how they make me feel and I can most definitely eat 5,000 calories of fatty meat in a single day. I have no desire to test those waters again. I'm quite happy with the 75lbs that I've lost on a 50% carb diet. I also have no illusions that you'd ever seriously rethink any of your positions on your own blog, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Best of luck!

[fred hahn]

Chad -

First thanks for saying I am a good writer. Much appreciated.

You seem a tad alarmed by my post. Let's take a moment to think and talk this through shall we?

First I said "obese." I didn't say you could not gain weight. As for Eskimos, the only obese Eskimos were those that lived in civilized nations eating the white man's fare away from of their natural habitat. Were there 'unlean' Eskimos who only ate their natural staple of seal and such - yes. But obese, no. Am I wrong? Perhaps we need to define obese? A few polite people like Lyle McDonald of The Ketogenic Diet fame have called me 'fat' yet my BF% is 12%. What's fat? What's obese? Was Oliver Hardy obese? Back then absolutely yes. Today he would be considered plump.

Have you ever seen an obese Masai warrior? All they eat is meat and fat and plenty of it. Colder clime people store more of their fat on the outside of their bodies whereas warmer clime people behind the muscle wall to allow heat to escape. Two people can be hydrostatically weighted and have the exact same BF% and look very different.

And yes - you are right. You probably could become fat or get fatter IF you ate 5,000 calories a day, every day for a spell eating fatty meats if you are of normal stature and are as muscular as you can already be naturally.

But try it.

Even for a single day. You won't be able to do it. And there are overfeeding studies to confirm this - studies done on prisoners who were allowed to eat all the fatty meats they wanted. They could not eat enough. I can't refernce them right now but they exist - mentioned in GCBC I believe.

When you say it's not about me it's about the science, I'm not sure what you mean. I am not a scientist but I read enough to know what I say is valid and supported in science. We are not a closed system like a car. Our bodies deal with calories ingested in very different ways depending upon what we eat, how much we eat, how we expend them, etc.

You can't store body fat if you don't produce insulin - no matter how many calories you eat. Why is this?

Sugar causes insulin to rise. One of the main function of insulin is to store body fat. No insulin, no body fat storage. Excessive insulin and/or insulin insensitivity and you become obese if you eat enough and eat enough you can. And eat enough you can quite easily if your main staple is carbohydrate especially refined carbohydrate. It is the reason why Americans are so much fatter today than 40 years ago. Low fat/no fat diets have forced us to eat more sugar. We are not eating more calories today than 30 years ago that account for the added pounds Americans are packing on.

Read Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. This is just one of many, many books that discuss this issue. Go to the Nutrition and Metabolism Website www.nmsociety.org and read the info there.

Better still, try it for yourself - as I have. For one month eat nothing but fatty meats, eggs, fish, etc. Have a green salad if it makes you feel better about your health but keep it nonstarchy. No dairy. No grains. No sauces. Only fatty meats. Eat as much as you can till you feel like you are full. If you're not full, eat more meat. Count the calories. Weigh yourself before and after. Drink only water.

The next month make sure you get about 1.2 grams of protein per your body weight (unless you are obese) and eat the rest of your calories in pasta, fruit, rice, bread, milk, cake, oatmeal, etc. Eat till you are full. If you are not full, eat more carbohydrate only. Do not eat more protein than the alloted amount. Count your calories. At the end of the month weigh yourself. Drink whatever you like, beer, soda, wine, whatever.

Don't exercise more. Keep it equal.

Report your results back here. Take some pix before and after as well. There will be a VAST difference in how you feel and a difference in what you weigh and look like. If you are VERY fit and VERY active it may take 2 months of each to see the difference.

Try it.

[Seth]

I enjoyed the the post quite a bit. I particularly liked your idea about getting an income tax deduction for keeping your body weight within twenty pounds of your optimal body composition.

I do have mixed feelings about a tax on soft drinks. I feel that it would be nice for the soft drink companies and those who indulge in their products to shoulder some of the financial strain that soft drinks are putting on our health care system. But as I said my feelings are mixed.

[James Krieger, M.S., M.S.]

Also, YOU are the one claiming that the cancer that is found in wild animals is caused by man. Thus it is your burden to prove this....which is a hefty burden because it requires you to explain all the various cancers in wild animals, and to provide the evidence of the origins of these cancers.

And no, sweeping generalizations based on speculation and ideology doesn't cut it as evidence.

[James Krieger, M.S., M.S.]

There is no place on earth that humans have not dwelled....unless you want to consider the deep sea where whales dwell, who DO get cancer. But of course you're just going to say it's man made because the seas are polluted. Of course, you're ASSUMING all of this with NO evidence.

I gave you an excellent reference which THOROUGHLY discusses past research on cancer in the wild.

Also, AGAIN you are trying to shift the burden of proof. It is a FACT that cancer is found in wild animals. YOU are the one claiming that this cancer is caused by humans. Thus, it is YOUR burden to prove this.

Finally, I'm not making any claims regarding the frequency of cancer in wild animals. I'm only stating it does occur. YOU are the one claiming the frequency is extremely low. Thus, it is your burden to prove this.

If you need a reminder regarding where the burden of proof lies in regards to debate, here it is:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

An excerpt:

"...in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists"

In this debate, you are the one making the claim. Thus, it is your burden to back it up with data.....not speculation or fallacies.

[Chad Dukes]

Consuming sugar is the only way to become obese? I guess you've never seen a fat eskimo? How could you possibly say that sugar is the "only way" to become obese? If I ate 5000 calories per day of fatty meats I would still gain weight.

Fred. You're such a good writer. Yet you're so stuck on topics that are demonstrably false. Why do you constantly ignore the overwhelming volume of evidence that contradicts your assertions. Being a person of science means bravely staring in the face those pieces of evidence that might contradict your claims, and being OK with that. Because, Fred, it's not about you. It's about the science.

[fred hahn]

You still don't get what I mean by "wild" on purpose I suppose.

Read 'The Friendly Artic' by Vilhjalmur Stefansson for starters. There are many anthro books that discuss these issues.

Humor me and list a few good refernces that state that cancer is quite common in animals where humans have not and did not dwell or that it is logical to assume that cancer is a common occurance in wild animals.

[James Krieger, M.S., M.S.]

Finally, your assertion that wild animals don't get cancer (or that it's rare) is more absurd when you consider what actually causes cancer.

Cancer is caused by genetic mutations. Certainly, man-made carcinogens increase the risk of getting such mutations. However, these mutations occur even in the perfectly healthy. If such mutations never occurred, evolution would have never occurred.

For you to assert that wild animals rarely if ever get cancer is to assert that genetic mutations don't happen in wild animals....an assertion that is false.

[James Krieger, M.S., M.S.]

Fred, here's what I mean by data.

Sirenomelia, AKA "Mermaid Syndrome" is found in about 1 out of every 100,000 live human births. Thus, it can be stated that this syndrome is rare because there is empirical data demonstrating this.

However, you cannot claim cancer in the wild is rare (interestingly, you've gone from saying it doesn't exist in the wild to now saying it's rare), because you don't have such data. Unless you know the actual cancer rates, you cannot make claims as to the frequency of cancer in the wild.

On top of that, the limited data that does exists suggests cancer is not rare in the wild. For example, an isolated population of Beluga whales in the St Lawrence river estuary has been observed and monitored for 17 years. Cancer is the 2nd leading cause of death in this population (accounting for 18% of mortalities), a rate that is similar to that of humans.

[James Krieger, M.S., M.S.]

*********
from what I have read and learned about primitive humans who are virtually diseases free,
***********

On top of that, you don't even have any hard data that primitive humans were disease free

[James Krieger, M.S., M.S.]

*************
My "blind assertion" on cancer in the wild being rare is supported by many
**************

If it's supported by many, than why can't you seem to provide the evidence? Why are you unable to produce numbers regarding cancer rates in the wild?

************
from what I have read and learned about primitive humans who are virtually diseases free,
*************

Don't believe everything you read....particularly things that don't have much, if any, evidence to back them up.

************
I am voicing an opinion based on this evidence.
************

But you haven't provided any evidence! Your "evidence" is simply another assertion which is not based on any data.

**********
If cancer was common in the wild it would be completely illogical
************

Why? Because it doesn't fit with your preconceived beliefs?

**************
especially if those cancers were transmissible.
****************

That makes even less sense. A transmissible cancer would become very common in a particular population, especially if that population is isolated, like the Tasmanian Devil population is.

***************
Man has been with the wolf a lot longe than that however and could have passed a virus on to them.
****************

"Could've".....lots of speculation with no evidence on your part

[fred hahn]

James my friend you're still at it. My, my.

My "blind assertion" on cancer in the wild being rare is supported by many and it makes evolutionary sense.

It is my opinion - as I have stated several times - from what I have read and learned about primitive humans who are virtually diseases free, enter into modern civilized world and then experience cancer, obesity, diabetes, gum disease, artiritis, etc. The same thing happens to animals. I am voicing an opinion based on this evidence. If cancer in wild animals was common, it would also be common in primitive peoples like the Inuit, Aborigine, Masai, etc.

If cancer was common in the wild it would be completely illogical especially if those cancers were transmissible. Yes - I am voicing my opinion based on what I think from what I have read. You don't agree. Fine.

As for the wolves, this is interesting. As you said they "believe" it stsrted 2500 years ago. Man has been with the wolf a lot longe than that however and could have passed a virus on to them. Also, this is rare.

Why you continue to try to make me wrong for my opinions in a nasty and parochial way and continue to use vitriol indicates you have a strange stalker mentality.

I'll be diving into your meta soon BTW. Should make for a great blog post. Can't wait for your responses.