Finland aims to eliminate smoking

[Ford Prefect]

Hey, Azure, I was listening to that Apocalyptica album the other day and thought of you. Thanks man.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Why do you assume I lead a poor lifestyle? My diabetes and cholesterol problems are hereditary and have nothing to do with lifestyle. My son first tested high for cholesterol at 14 years old. He's fit, active and eats healthy. Diabetes and cholesterol problems along with a couple other health issues appear in my family all over the place, and they trace directly back to my maternal grandmother. With proper management we still tend to live into our 80s, but lifestyle alone won't prevent or control our hereditary health issues.

A healthy and fit lifestyle by the book will all but eliminate any of the effects of genetics on things in your blood lipid profile, short of exceptional circumstances. If you choose to think otherwise, then that's your business.

Originally Posted by Azure

To think that people should be consuming 50%-60% carbs on a daily basis is absolutely ridiculous. Most people leave VERY sedentary lifestyles. Outside of the carbs that their brain uses to function(even that is debatable)....there is absolutely no need for 400-500g of carbs.

I don't give a crap if its whole wheat or complex carbs either. Carbs are supposed to be used as an energy source and if people are not VERY active they're not getting burned. Maybe that exhaustive research ought to research some more what happens to carbs when they're not utilized by the body.

What do you think the 50%-60% is? It's 50%-60% of your recommended caloric intake should come from carbohydrates. For men, recommended caloric intake is 2500 calories a day. For women, it is 2000 calories a day.

I don't know where you get your notion of what an "energy source" is, but there's this little unit of measurement for energy called calories. You say carbs are primarily an energy source... what the hell do you think fats and protein are?

The recommendation of carbs for men is 55% x 2500 calories = 345g of carbohydrates a day.

Your energy needs should be adjusted to you. If someone is sedentary and wants to remain at low body fat, obviously they may need less than the 2500 recommended calories a day (for men). This isn't based on carbohydrate intake at all.

If someone eats 3000 calories a day, and will lose weight if they reduce that to 2500, they can eat all the damn carbs they want as long as it equals 2500 calories. If they conceivably ate 0g of fat, 500g of carbs, and 125g of protein (from the carbs), they would lose weight.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

The point in all of this? The government STILL doesn't realize that. Guide to healthy eating for Canadians still recommends 50-60% carbs. And they have been promoting this obscene and unhealthy way of eating for many years now. The results are quite obvious too.

If the Food Guide is so egregiously wrong, why is the Dietitians Council of Canada using it? The Canadian Diabetes Association? I don't think people are overweight because they are following the Canada Food Guide. I think they are overweight because they DON'T follow the Canadian Food Guide.

So why should I trust them to do anything at all? This is the government we're talking about people. They manage to blow billion dollar surpluses and think throwing more money at a problem will solve it. They start wars based on faulty intelligence and then it takes them 5 years to realize the mistake in the way they executed that war.

Because George Bush and Dick Cheney orchestrated a war in Iraq, therefore, government can never do anything right? Given the amount of salt and sugar in our commercial foods, I've come to the conclusion that all corporate CEOs want us to die at an early age.

Government has a role to play in setting public policy including health policy. Or am I debating another anarchist like FoL?

Thanks but not thanks, but I prefer that the government stay away from playing God and trying to decide for me what is healthy and unhealthy.

The only way the government would be playing God by banning cigarettes and putting in regulations against salt and sugar contents is deciding who lives and who dies. And they would be deciding that less people should die young.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

What do you think the 50%-60% is? It's 50%-60% of your recommended caloric intake should come from carbohydrates. For men, recommended caloric intake is 2500 calories a day. For women, it is 2000 calories a day.

I don't know where you get your notion of what an "energy source" is, but there's this little unit of measurement for energy called calories. You say carbs are primarily an energy source... what the hell do you think fats and protein are?

The recommendation of carbs for men is 55% x 2500 calories = 345g of carbohydrates a day.

Your energy needs should be adjusted to you. If someone is sedentary and wants to remain at low body fat, obviously they may need less than the 2500 recommended calories a day (for men). This isn't based on carbohydrate intake at all.

If someone eats 3000 calories a day, and will lose weight if they reduce that to 2500, they can eat all the damn carbs they want as long as it equals 2500 calories. If they conceivably ate 0g of fat, 500g of carbs, and 125g of protein (from the carbs), they would lose weight.

You're kidding right?

There are two primary fuels used in metabolic energy production: carbohydrate and fat. Carboydrates are used to replenish glucose stores in the blood stream, which in turn are shipped to the musculature during activity during the glycolitic and oxidative energy production pathways. These are a "cheap" energy source.

Fat is a more "expensive" fuel, as it must first be converted into fatty acids and glycerol through lipolysis (a catabolic process). The fatty acids are transported to the musculature for energy production. Because of the expense of conversion, it is not as commonly used during energy production. The brain, our biggest calorie user, only utilizes glucose for energy production - not fatty acids(although that is debatable).

Its not as simple as calories in/calories out. Never has been....and there is science to back that up. What happens to excess carbs? They get turned into sugar and eventually into fat.

So if you're eating even 350g of carbs per day but all you do is sit at a desk all day, which many people do, what do you think happens to those carbs?

There are a lot of people on CP that have gone with the low carb approach and have had a lot of success. Myself included. Nobody is talking about 20g per day like Atkins suggests, but if I stay below 100g on non-workout days, I lose fat. Not weight, but fat.

Jonny Bowden has written extensively on this very subject. If you're more interested where my science comes from I suggest you look up his books.

[FlamesFanInOilCountry]

Ok, this can be simplified. Debating dietary needs is a serious derailment of this thread.

The government should stay away from revoking the civil rights of smokers, as it is their choice to destroy their bodies. If their rights are revoked it opens Pandoras box for the regulation of big brother to remove anything unhealthy over the umbrella of "protecting the investment of public health care."

The government should be continue to reduce the areas that people can smoke in order to protect the public. IE: Smoking is not allowed in any buildings and is allowed outside (5m?) from any public door or air vent, that should be increased each year, to let's say 10m. I would like to see it reach the point that public smoking is nearly impossible, so that there is only one designated area for every city block etc etc. Taxes on all tobacco based products should be gradually increased, as well, so that a massive black market doesn't develop, but that the taxes can be used to help subsidize how much smokers cost the health care system.

Allow smokers to do what they want, but not at the expense of the rest of the public. By gradually and continually making it harder and harder to smoke, less people will pick up the habit, and those that do will pay a heavy cost and have a hard time feeding their habit.

[Burninator]

Question to those who are in favour of this ban.

I assume since you support the ban of smoking you would also support the ban of alcohol considering it's much worse than smoking in terms of public health and safety.

[FlamesFanInOilCountry]

I get the impression that most of the people that are for "banning smoking" are going for the reactionary "Ewww smoking is gross, ban it" and haven't thought about the actual ramifications of the decision to ban smoking.

Alcohol has enough rules in place to ensure safe consumption, the missing link is enforcement of these laws (ALGC, Police, Bylaws etc).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanInOilCountry

I get the impression that most of the people that are for "banning smoking" are going for the reactionary "Ewww smoking is gross, ban it" and haven't thought about the actual ramifications of the decision to ban smoking.

People tend to never think of the ramifications of giving the government too much power. Your post above was excellent.

Alcohol has enough rules in place to ensure safe consumption, the missing link is enforcement of these laws (ALGC, Police, Bylaws etc).

I do think we need a bigger educational push towards the younger generation. While I was in school the unsafe consumption of alcohol(drinking then driving) was a big problem.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanInOilCountry

Alcohol has enough rules in place to ensure safe consumption

Hardly. There are some rules for being drunken in public. But there are no rules for overall consumption or consumption in your private residence. You can drink as much as you want for as many years as you want and cause all kinds of damage to your body the same way you can as smoking. People are attacking the health effects of smoking as a reason to ban it. How is alcohol abuse any different?

the missing link is enforcement of these laws (ALGC, Police, Bylaws etc).

That is not a small problem, and probably not a solution.

Anyways I think we both agree that banning smoking or alcohol is a bad idea. I just think it doesn't make sense that someone wants to ban smoking and not alcohol when that latter is easily a bigger problem.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Question to those who are in favour of this ban.

I assume since you support the ban of smoking you would also support the ban of alcohol considering it's much worse than smoking in terms of public health and safety.

Alcohol helps us seduce women. Tobacco does not.

[Locke]

You used to be cool Finland...

[FlamesFanInOilCountry]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Hardly. There are some rules for being drunken in public. But there are no rules for overall consumption or consumption in your private residence. You can drink as much as you want for as many years as you want and cause all kinds of damage to your body the same way you can as smoking. People are attacking the health effects of smoking as a reason to ban it. How is alcohol abuse any different?
That is not a small problem, and probably not a solution.

Anyways I think we both agree that banning smoking or alcohol is a bad idea. I just think it doesn't make sense that someone wants to ban smoking and not alcohol when that latter is easily a bigger problem.

I think what sets smoking apart from liquor is the severity of the addiction to the two products. If you had enough time on your hands I'm sure you could get more than enough information to back the agrument that:

-There is a significant higher percentage Tobacco users that are addicted to their product.
-As a result smoking is more costly because more people are addicted to smoking (especially for life).
-The long term affects to both products are both fatal, but less people reach that stage with drinking as opposed to smoking.
-Smoking is more common and thus creates a larger disturbance (what I mean is, you're going to get disturbed far more often by second hand smoke, then you will by getting punched in the face by a drunk or hit by a drunk driver).

Just throwing it out there...

[Bill Bumface]

It's pretty entertaining how scared and defensive smokers get when there is any suggestion of their precious cigarettes being taken away.

It's also interesting to see how they are drawn to other smokers so they can feel like its a normal thing to do and "not that bad".

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Question to those who are in favour of this ban.

I assume since you support the ban of smoking you would also support the ban of alcohol considering it's much worse than smoking in terms of public health and safety.

What are you talking about? Alcohol doesn't affect anyone but the person consuming it. Alcohol has health benefits.

Smoking does nothing but pollute the air and damage your health. And is so addictive that people, who know how incredibly stupid smoking is, still can't quit.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Question to those who are in favour of this ban.

I assume since you support the ban of smoking you would also support the ban of alcohol considering it's much worse than smoking in terms of public health and safety.

The main difference is that you're comparing alcohol "abuse" to smoking. The comparison should be alcohol to smoking.

When you speak of alcohal being worse on public health and safety, you're reffering to alcohol "abuse".

The difference being that reasonable alcohol consumption doesn't put a strain on public health and safety, where as smoking does.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by azure

You're kidding right?

There are two primary fuels used in metabolic energy production: carbohydrate and fat. Carboydrates are used to replenish glucose stores in the blood stream, which in turn are shipped to the musculature during activity during the glycolitic and oxidative energy production pathways. These are a "cheap" energy source.

Fat is a more "expensive" fuel, as it must first be converted into fatty acids and glycerol through lipolysis (a catabolic process). The fatty acids are transported to the musculature for energy production. Because of the expense of conversion, it is not as commonly used during energy production. The brain, our biggest calorie user, only utilizes glucose for energy production - not fatty acids(although that is debatable).

Its not as simple as calories in/calories out. Never has been....and there is science to back that up. What happens to excess carbs? They get turned into sugar and eventually into fat.

So if you're eating even 350g of carbs per day but all you do is sit at a desk all day, which many people do, what do you think happens to those carbs?

There are a lot of people on CP that have gone with the low carb approach and have had a lot of success. Myself included. Nobody is talking about 20g per day like Atkins suggests, but if I stay below 100g on non-workout days, I lose fat. Not weight, but fat.

Jonny Bowden has written extensively on this very subject. If you're more interested where my pseudo science comes from I suggest you look up his books

All it took was a look at this Bowden character’s webpage to realize his motive; he’s selling products. Many products. Can you trust someone like that?

Here’s the actual breakdown.

The body is in an anabolic state 3-4 hours following a meal. Proteins, fats, and glycogen are all formed. Proteins are stored as amino acids, glycogen is stored from carbohydrates, and fats and excess protein/carbohydrates are stored in adipose tissue. In other words, all excess protein, carbohydrates, and fat that are not used as energy or to replace substances used as energy, are stored as fat.

You are right to say that the brain utilizes glucose as an energy source. You are wrong, however, to say it does not use fatty acids. In the glucose sparing post absorptive state, there needs to be adequate blood glucose to supply the central nervous system. In order to maintain this glucose level, three events occur. Glycogen stores in the liver and muscle tissue are broken down into glucose and moved into the blood. Triglycerides are broken down and the body switches over to fatty acid metabolism. Finally, gluconeogenesis occurs from pyruvate, lactate, glycerol and amino acids; this is the formation of glucose from non-carbohydrate sources.

Now, when you say that fats are an expensive energy source and carbohydrates are cheap, I’m assuming you mean that carbohydrates would contribute more to body fat. This is absolutely not the case. The body harvests 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate, and 9 calories per gram of fat. This is controlled for the energy required by metabolism to break them down. For example, protein actually has something like 12 calories per gram, but requires a lot of energy to metabolize, and ends up supplying 4 calories per gram.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you have been attempting to lose weight for awhile now, no? Perhaps if you realized that it is as simply as calories in vs calories out you would attain more success. If you’re just counting grams of carbohydrates vs grams of fat in your diet you must be struggling.

While I wouldn’t recommend low-carb diets because they are more or less a fad and are quite difficult to stick to (since carbs are everywhere), they do work. Assuming, of course, that calories out exceeds calories in. While nutritional dogma suggests that a high fat diet (including saturated fats exceeding 10% of your caloric intake) would actually worsen your blood lipid profile, it has been proven that low carb diets do in fact improve them. Analysis of dieters several months later showed that improvements were similar across both low carb and traditional reduced calorie diets (following the food guide) when significant weight was lost. As long as you are getting all of your vitamins and minerals, then a low carb diet shouldn’t be a problem outside of efficacy.