Log in:  

Register

Sugar Tax, Jamie oliver

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Eshnar, Irondan, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

20 Mar 2016 21:10

Totally agree with carolina and fatandfast that our lifestyle has changed. I think that is the main reason there are now more obese children than 1, 2, 3 or even more decades ago. Inactivity and overeating - it's a deadly combo (literally :) )

Rhubroma - very interesting :)
User avatar LaFlorecita
Veteran
 
Posts: 30,964
Joined: 15 May 2011 09:53
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Re:

20 Mar 2016 21:13

LaFlorecita wrote:Totally agree with carolina and fatandfast that our lifestyle has changed. I think that is the main reason there are now more obese children than 1, 2, 3 or even more decades ago. Inactivity and overeating - it's a deadly combo (literally :) )

Rhubroma - very interesting :)


I know. It's really not far off the mark in the psycho-physiological sense. Probably avoids cancer with it.
User avatar rhubroma
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,707
Joined: 02 Apr 2009 14:31

Re: Re:

20 Mar 2016 21:18

rhubroma wrote:
LaFlorecita wrote:Totally agree with carolina and fatandfast that our lifestyle has changed. I think that is the main reason there are now more obese children than 1, 2, 3 or even more decades ago. Inactivity and overeating - it's a deadly combo (literally :) )

Rhubroma - very interesting :)


I know. It's really not far off the mark in the psycho-physiological sense. Probably avoids cancer with it.


Or minimizes relative to one's exposure to industrial toxins.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,047
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47

Re: Re:

20 Mar 2016 22:49

LaFlorecita wrote:
carolina wrote:ray jay's approach of food with his kids actually seems very wise. there's nothing wrong with the occasional sweets as long as they have a well balanced diet. he also makes sure his kids don't obsess about food, which seems to be the problem with the majority of obese people.

But when you read "my kids eat sweets big bags of haribos" would you think his kids have just the occasional sweets or lots of them.

Carolina, you seem quite knowledgable, surely you agree that you CAN get fat due to eating too much sugar.
Ray jay is just repeating the durianrider/freelee dogma: you can eat as many carbs as you want, you will not get fat.

yes, but we can't ignore the fact that it is easier to get fat by eating junk food then by eating whole foods. there are three reasons for this:
1) junk food has way more calories
2) junk food is not satiating at all
3) junk food often tastes better or is more appealing to the consumer

Absolutely. That's why I said: "why not introduce a sugar tax AND a junk food tax" :)


I Never said " only junk food makes you obese " and
when did I say this "you can eat as many carbs as you want, you will not get fat" I never said that so stop posting lies.

I used the words "Excess" Excess is what makes you fat. i.e you cant eat as many carbs as you want unless you burn those carbs up which is what DR does.
Not sugar or junk food but excessive amounts of food will make you fat.
I don't know you and I have no idea of your food issues. If as you claim you put weight on easy then perhaps you have a slow thyroid. Have you seen a Dr? I had slow thyroid myself due to eating leafy food.http://thyroid.about.com/od/symptomsrisks/a/All-About-Goitrogens-thyroid.htm
I kept a diary and I sorted the problem out with the help of my dr and regular blood test's to monitor my condition.
Simple calorie control is the simple and most effective way to keep control of your weight,if you have a food issue keep a diary of what you eat and how you feel.

I don't count calories. If I gain a bit of unwanted weight I just eat a little bit less for a day or 2 but I do eat.
Its not rocket science.
ray j willings
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,645
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 18:15

Re: Re:

20 Mar 2016 22:58

LaFlorecita wrote:
aphronesis wrote:If you qualify the durianrider position to "eat a largely raw, vegan, unprocessed diet of whole foods and stay consistently active" you will not get fat, it's hard to find that many counterexamples. obviously some people are built differently than others.

His position is that you can eat however many calories from carbs, you won't get fat. Hence the "30 bananas a day" thing. The whole foods vegan diet, no issues with that.


A banana is around 100 calories some more some less . If you eat 30 bananas you are eating around 3000 calories. Then as DR does he goes off and rides up a mountain for a hour or so then he would be well within is calorie intake for the day depending how many calories he uses on his bike ride and through the rest of the day he could be under.
ray j willings
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,645
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 18:15

Re:

21 Mar 2016 02:59

carolina wrote:here are some interesting facts: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.pt/2015/11/carbohydrate-sugar-and-obesity-in.html

sneak peak:
Image

Image

people are obese because they consume more calories then they spend. it's very simple.

regarding the links between sugar and cancer, one should be very carefull when looking into these studies. correlation doesn't equal causation (http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)


Image

Image

A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain


A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.


"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."


In results published online Feb. 26 by the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, the researchers from the Department of Psychology and the Princeton Neuroscience Institute reported on two experiments investigating the link between the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and obesity.

The first study showed that male rats given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, in conjunction with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas.


The second experiment -- the first long-term study of the effects of high-fructose corn syrup consumption on obesity in lab animals -- monitored weight gain, body fat and triglyceride levels in rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup over a period of six months. Compared to animals eating only rat chow, rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly. Male rats in particular ballooned in size: Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet.

"These rats aren't just getting fat; they're demonstrating characteristics of obesity, including substantial increases in abdominal fat and circulating triglycerides," said Princeton graduate student Miriam Bocarsly. "In humans, these same characteristics are known risk factors for high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, cancer and diabetes."
2016: Year of the Red Fire Monkey
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,833
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

21 Mar 2016 03:06

I have not drink beverage include coke,soda and juice.Just pure water or salt water.
https://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/
DrewPowell
New Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 19 Mar 2016 10:20

21 Mar 2016 15:12

I admit that I'm a bit confused.

You put two graphics that show the continued increase in obesity while the consuption of sugar and HFCS diminuishes. You then proceed to quote a study about rats that says HFCS is related to obesity.

First of all, we are humans, not rats. Also, as I said before, correlation doesn't equal causation.
carolina
Member
 
Posts: 899
Joined: 29 Sep 2013 18:07

Re:

21 Mar 2016 15:48

carolina wrote:I admit that I'm a bit confused.

You put two graphics that show the continued increase in obesity while the consuption of sugar and HFCS diminuishes. You then proceed to quote a study about rats that says HFCS is related to obesity.

First of all, we are humans, not rats. Also, as I said before, correlation doesn't equal causation.


Well, you are a bit confused. On some level all mammals respond to chemicals and stimulus in the same way. That's why rats so often serve as stand-ins in laboratory studies of everything from medicine to cosmetics.

Availability of high fructose corn syrup rises in my graphic until ~2008, whereupon it begins to fall off while obesity rates continue to rise. This is accounted for by the study I quote, which shows that even a modest amount of HFCS will promote obesity and diabetes. By 2008, in other words, the market was so saturated with high fructose corn syrup that even when the supply began to decline, there was enough of it in circulation that obesity rates continued to rise.
2016: Year of the Red Fire Monkey
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,833
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

21 Mar 2016 16:13

They continue to rise because people continue to consume excess calories and continue to have sedentary lifestyles.

Obese people consume a lot of process foods, these types of food have HFCS. Even if the industry diminuishes the amount of corn syrup, they just substitute it for something else. For instance, the FDA has forbidden the use of trans fats starting in 2017. The industry is just going to use something else instead.

examine.com, a website that presents independent and imparcial reviews of supplements and other nutrition related topics, has two interesting FAQs about sugar and HFCS:
http://examine.com/faq/what-is-the-difference-between-hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-sugar/
http://examine.com/faq/is-hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syrup-worse-than-sugar/
carolina
Member
 
Posts: 899
Joined: 29 Sep 2013 18:07

Re:

21 Mar 2016 16:39

carolina wrote:They continue to rise because people continue to consume excess calories and continue to have sedentary lifestyles.

Obese people consume a lot of process foods, these types of food have HFCS. Even if the industry diminuishes the amount of corn syrup, they just substitute it for something else. For instance, the FDA has forbidden the use of trans fats starting in 2017. The industry is just going to use something else instead.

examine.com, a website that presents independent and imparcial reviews of supplements and other nutrition related topics, has two interesting FAQs about sugar and HFCS:
http://examine.com/faq/what-is-the-difference-between-hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-sugar/
http://examine.com/faq/is-hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syrup-worse-than-sugar/


These "HFCS wouldn't hurt a fly" studies remind me of the many "seat belts will cause more fatalities than they save" studies thrown up by "independent" sources in the early sixties, or the "nicotine is neither harmful nor addictive" conclusions brought forth by "respected" scientists in the same period. Show me the money and I'll show you a "scientific" conclusion that contradicts both science and common sense. ("Global warming is a sham", anyone?)
2016: Year of the Red Fire Monkey
User avatar Maxiton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,833
Joined: 14 May 2010 15:24
Location: Northern California

21 Mar 2016 17:09

the thing here is the amount of HFCS people are consuming. everything in excess will hurt you. even water for god sake.

consuming HFCS in a reasonable amount everyday won't hurt you. another example: the WHO (the organization, not the band :D) recomends that people don't consume more than 25 grams of added sugars per day. this means you can consume food that has added sugars, but you should be mindfull of the amount your consuming because it can be bad for you.

There currently is no good evidence to suggest that one is worse than the other; either they are both inert or they are both evil. The difference between them is too small to matter in moderate consumption, and in excess both are harmful to health
carolina
Member
 
Posts: 899
Joined: 29 Sep 2013 18:07

21 Mar 2016 18:26

Good discussion.

I think the issue with HFCS is that it only appears in junk food, or food with empty calories, if you think about it. Same with trans-fat for that matter.

I'll echo what I said before, if we're going to tax sugar, or at least foods with added sugar, then I think we need to also tax meat and dairy products as well, as there have been numerous links of meat consumption to cancer and heart disease, plus increasing studies showing links of consumption of animal protein to type-2 diabetes as well. And if we're going to be honest about it, we'd also tax processed food, and heavily subsidize just about anything in the produce aisle.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,324
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

Re:

21 Mar 2016 18:43

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Good discussion.

I think the issue with HFCS is that it only appears in junk food, or food with empty calories, if you think about it. Same with trans-fat for that matter.

I'll echo what I said before, if we're going to tax sugar, or at least foods with added sugar, then I think we need to also tax meat and dairy products as well, as there have been numerous links of meat consumption to cancer and heart disease, plus increasing studies showing links of consumption of animal protein to type-2 diabetes as well. And if we're going to be honest about it, we'd also tax processed food, and heavily subsidize just about anything in the produce aisle.


I watched "Fed Up" after you mentioned it earlier in the thread. What was the aspect of it that you felt was bordering on propaganda? They did mention quite clearly near the beginning that eating fruit is ok and they showed a graphic that compared how fruit is metabolised compared to processed sugar. The message at the end of the film seemed to be "eat real food" which seems like a pretty sensible suggestion. I agree they don't mention potential nasties found in meat, but then I can understand them thinking that, for people on real bad diets of hamburgers and coke, that trying to persuade them to cut out meat as well as all the other stuff may be a bridge too far.
User avatar cellardoor
Member
 
Posts: 554
Joined: 05 Apr 2015 03:28
Location: Thailand

21 Mar 2016 19:21

the big problem is that most of these studies that "show links to" heart disease, cancer, etc, are not conclusive.

lets look at colesterol, for example. for years it has been demonized and doctors were telling their patients to not eat more then 2 eggs a week. well, guess what, FDA new guidelines include the removal of the limit for daily colesterol intake. you can eat as many eggs as you want, because dietary colesterol has no noticeable effects on blood colesterol levels, (with the exception of people that already have colesterol issues and type-2 diabetes).

taxing sugar or any other type of food/ingredient is wrong, because a single food/ingredient isn't responsible for obesity. obesity is a result of several factors and it's a shame that some famous people prefer to take down a single food/ingredient instead of teaching the population on how to be healthier.

the only thing that I know of that is bad for you, regardless of the quantity, are trans fats. which isn't really surprising, since trans fats are 100% industrial made.
carolina
Member
 
Posts: 899
Joined: 29 Sep 2013 18:07

Re: Re:

21 Mar 2016 20:52

carolina wrote:the big problem is that most of these studies that "show links to" heart disease, cancer, etc, are not conclusive

That's what I liked about Forks Over Knives. It looked at some of the largest studies ever, and drew general conclusions, while looking at whole food groups. Basically, people who live in societies who eat a lot of plants are healthier. We don't eat enough plants. Eat more plants.

cellardoor wrote:I watched "Fed Up" after you mentioned it earlier in the thread. What was the aspect of it that you felt was bordering on propaganda?

I guess I found the thing more grating and Katy Couric coming off as shrill. The talk about addiction and all. I found it more pushing at emotions, than based on science and studies, and the way it was edited often made me feel like it was set-up to show people who disagreed to have no answers, careless, or even look foolish. Or worse, these companies like McDonalds or Coca Cola are just greedy parasites, basically drug dealers, hooking children on sugar.

My other complaint is that if you step away from the film, and look at society, there are a LOT of people who glance at things like this, which is how many people are reacting to Jamie Oliver, and then demonize all sugars, even all carbohydrates. It doesn't mater how you get them. It's all going to cause an insulin spike and the sugar will turn to FAT!!! These are the same as the Atkins people. These people then go on restrictive diet which is heavy in protein - usually animal protein, and fat, usually animal fat, and lose some weight and call it a success. But any restrictive diet will cause you to lose weight, as you're eating less calories until you can learn to shop and buy your way around this new hurdle you've created and start packing on more calories.

Then again, maybe I saw the film from a completely different set of eyes than what the target audience might be. I already know you shouldn't eat a lot of sugar infused food, processed food, and need to exercise more. And I believe the only person who is going to truly help you, and take care of your well being, is you. You need to eat better, less calories, and exercise more. Almost no amount of taxes on sugar are going to do that.

And as I said before, if you really want to force people to eat better, you'd heavily tax processed food (much of which contains sugar), and to some degree meat and dairy products.

While we're at it, let's make everyone under the age of 60 ride a bike more. :)
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,324
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

Re: Sugar Tax, Jamie oliver

21 Mar 2016 21:32

Great points and the end it still comes down to how much food you put in your mouth.
Look at the huge market for so called low fat or low sugar foods yet obesity is still at a all time high. Most of these foods have the same amount of calories i.e that's the problem not content but quantity.
I love to eat a doughnut, why should I be taxed for eating a doughnut because someone else cant control their eating habit.
ray j willings
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,645
Joined: 04 Aug 2011 18:15

Re: Sugar Tax, Jamie oliver

21 Mar 2016 21:52

ray j willings wrote:I love to eat a doughnut, why should I be taxed for eating a doughnut because someone else cant control their eating habit.

Because we're trying to control the obesity epidemic. In the end a healthier population is beneficial to everyone. Besides, if more people are obese, more people will be in need of medical help and health insurance fees will go up. So in the end it doesn't really matter if you pay an additional 10 cents for a donut you eat once a week, or 10 euros more for your health insurance.
User avatar LaFlorecita
Veteran
 
Posts: 30,964
Joined: 15 May 2011 09:53
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Re: Sugar Tax, Jamie oliver

21 Mar 2016 22:30

ray j willings wrote:Great points and the end it still comes down to how much food you put in your mouth.
Look at the huge market for so called low fat or low sugar foods yet obesity is still at a all time high. Most of these foods have the same amount of calories i.e that's the problem not content but quantity.
I love to eat a doughnut, why should I be taxed for eating a doughnut because someone else cant control their eating habit.

Ray I am glad you brought up one of the major food groups donuts
.I adore the rings of love.In NYC and Brooklyn there are donuts that can change a life.The hibiscus drizzled at Dough are fantastic and Donut Plant puts out products that bring a smile to your face before, during and after your purchase. Eating a deep fried ring of dough used to be easy. Straight forward ingredients and a simple process of cooking. Then the big guys started figuring ways to include things that make a donut that is a day or days old hard to identify.
Your simple math theory about your goz-indaz equalling your goz-outtaz would work if we only ate every few days,but some designer calories are put aside by your body and before our enzyme team can break apart some Archer Daniels bio mess or some Con Agra food mutant we add more food to the pile and our bodies, like taking a test put the hardest things until last..we just never keep up because of a lazy diet and foods that we think are simple are actually loaded with chit that not everybody knows is in there. I don't know if you used donuts as hyperbole but don't again. Along with wood fired pizza,donuts are foods I take very seriously... But I am w you about punishments that go across the board for responsible and irresponsible donut users.
Donut Bar in SD also has epic stuff w Stumptown coffee to accompany
fatandfast
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,463
Joined: 14 Jul 2009 22:01

Re: Sugar Tax, Jamie oliver

21 Mar 2016 23:12

LaFlorecita wrote:
ray j willings wrote:I love to eat a doughnut, why should I be taxed for eating a doughnut because someone else cant control their eating habit.

Because we're trying to control the obesity epidemic. In the end a healthier population is beneficial to everyone. Besides, if more people are obese, more people will be in need of medical help and health insurance fees will go up. So in the end it doesn't really matter if you pay an additional 10 cents for a donut you eat once a week, or 10 euros more for your health insurance.


and who is going to stop eating donuts because they cost 10 cents more? no one.

if governments are serious about obesity, then they should teach people on how to eat and motivate them to eat better and move more. what if instead of charging more for "bad foods", the government decreased taxes for whole foods? why not teach the kids in school on how to eat and the importance of eating well?

taxing something isn't going to resolve anything, it's just avoiding the real problem, which is lack of proper information.
carolina
Member
 
Posts: 899
Joined: 29 Sep 2013 18:07

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Back to top