• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Sugar Tax, Jamie oliver

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 4, 2011
2,644
0
0
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Yes Echoes, sugar and overeating in general have been linked to cancer many times, but I don't know the full mechanisms behind it.
Ray jay, this presumption that as long as you don't eat junk food, you are healthy and will stay slim, is just silly.
From the way you wrote it, it sounded like your kids stuff their faces with haribo and you have no issue with that. "My kids eat sweets big bags of haribos"

When I was 10 I got 1 chupa chups lollipop when I got out of school and that was it :rolleyes:
Can you please stop making assumptions. My kids eat sweets, my kids eat junk food sometimes a pizza or a burgar etc its not going to hurt them.
They do not eat to excess and they eat plenty of fruit and veg.
I don't deny my kids food , I don't make food a issue. They eat a well balanced diet.
Obesity Is not something I even think about when it comes to my kids because its not a issue for us.
Its a issue for all those parents who cant stop stuffing their fat faces and the fat faces of their kids.
 
I guess it is no use arguing with you.

Edit: what I will say, though, is that I've struggled with my weight since puberty, and the only junk food I eat is a small pizza once every month or two. Every time you write that the only people who can get overweight are the ones "stuffing their fat faces with junk food", it f*cking offends me and makes me sad because you could not be more wrong. Clearly you've been watching too many videos of that insensitive douchebag called durianrider.
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
And those calories can come from all sorts of foods. So ray jay's suggestion that only junk food causes obesity, is ridiculous.
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

also, refined sugar is half glucose, half fructose. it's metabolized by the body just like any other type of sugar. it's not going to make you any harm, it's just hidden, empty and unnecessary calories.

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.

regarding the part of being skinny, but unhealthy, just google metabolic syndrome.
 
Re: Re:

carolina said:
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" :)
 
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 and philosophically and/or physiologically indisposed to take that on.
 
Re:

aphronesis said:
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.
 
30 bananas a day is a bit silly and boring, yes. i could no problem, but wouldn't want to. The bigger issue here is a blanket and narrow condemnation of people for a very isolated form of "consumption".

And lack of governmental will.
 
you can get fat by eating lots of sugar, just like you can get fat by eating lots of dietary fat, just like you can get fat by eating lots of protein. what matters is the calories you consume and the calories you spend.

what really happens is the population is more sedentary (spend less calories) AND are eating more junk food (which has more calories).

during the summer I was eating ice cream every day, but I was also eating a tone of vegetables (almost a pound of broccoli on some days XD). what matters is that I hit my target calories for the day and make sure I eat enough whole foods to cover all the vitamins, minerals and fibre that I needed. I was able to lose a few kgs during this period. my blood work and blood pressure are impecable.

it's perfectly possible to have some sweets every day and be healthy, just make sure to eat mostly whole foods (80-85% of your diet) and be active.
 
Se voi star sano osserva questa norma
Non mangiar sanza voglia, e cena leve,
mastica bene, e quel che in te riceve sia ben cotto e di semplice forma
chi medicina piglia mal s’informa.
Guarti dall’ira e fuggi l’aria grieve;
su dritto sta, quando da mensa leve;
di mezzogiorno fa che tu non dorma
el vin sia temperato, poco e spesso,
non far di pasto ne a stomaco voto
non aspectar ne indugiare il cesso
se fai esercizio sia di picciol moto.
Col ventre resuppino e col capo represso
non star, e sta coperto ben di notte;
el capo ti posa e tien la mente lieta.
Fuggi lussuria e attienti alla dieta.


If you want to be healthy observe this rule
Don’t eat when not hungry, and dine lightly
chew well and make sure what you eat is well cooked and simply prepared;
he that takes drugs is poorly informed.
Beware of anger and avoid sorrow;
Stand up straight once you leave the dining room;
make sure you don’t sleep til noon
be careful the wine is tempered, drink little and often,
don’t eat on a full stomach, neither postpone nor dawdle on the hopper
if you take exercise, do it lightly.
Don’t lie face down on your stomach, and be well covered at night;
Rest your weary mind and keep your thoughts happy.
Avoid lust and watch your diet.

Leonardo da Vinci
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,463
0
0
I think it's strange that there is lots of any kind of arguments about sugar and diet and the link to disease and being fat.
In the US over the last @20 years there are thousands of calories from sugar at every cash register.... Yes every phucking one,Gap,Home Depot,Victoria Secret, bike shops,Payless Shoes,sporting goods stores,gas stations.. They have all altered the check out process to include some kind of sugar,usually in the form of chocolate or other sweet something.
So are we fat..yes..do we eat differently than just a few decades ago... Yes...is there more food that includes sugar..yes...is sugar the absolute cause no.
My parents looked daily for me and my brother as the sun went down. We were normally w other kids playing some sports or just riding our bikes. No PlayStation, no whackin my junk to a webcam...what a time saver that would have been.
People are simply less active and they eat more calories, all from sugar... In my observations.. No ...but lots more eating in general and the types of food and it's preparation are very different from a very short time ago..
 
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 :)
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
LaFlorecita said:
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.
 
Aug 4, 2011
2,644
0
0
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
carolina said:
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.
 
Aug 4, 2011
2,644
0
0
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
aphronesis said:
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.
 
May 14, 2010
4,833
2
0
Re:

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

sneak peak:




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)




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."
 
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.
 
May 14, 2010
4,833
2
0
Re:

carolina said:
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.
 
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/
 
May 14, 2010
4,833
2
0
Re:

carolina said:
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?)
 
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
 
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.
 
Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
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.
 
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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts