[John_D]

Re: Sugar Tax : Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:54 pm  

Dally wrote:

The fact that we need a sugar tax at all is, like so many of the country's current ills, down to plitical correctness.

Yeah, if we weren't polite to other people, we'd all be much better off in every way possible.

Re: Sugar Tax : Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:15 pm  

Standee wrote:

Thankyou, on some things (quite a few as we know) we agree...

Indeed. And it's one of the sad things about the internet that while that is absolutely the case, somehow the online world (or at least this bit of it) seems to emphasise the differences. Which is most certainly not the whole story. And I'm every bit as guilty as anyone else.

Standee wrote:

... In fairness to the cal train, I'd may have used the same language at his time in life, now I know many "fatties" who are actually medically overweight (I hate the phrase "clinically obese", if you've got an eating disorder they don't call you "clinically thin"), as far as I am concerned the most important health anyone can have is mental, and if having a few chunks of chocolate and a glass of wine helps with that after a difficult day then "crack on" I say, everything in moderation...

A number of fair/good points here. I'd never thought about the "clinically thin", but absolutely.

Standee wrote:

... myself I have a very difficult relationship woth food ...

I did for so many years. And breaking past that negativity has been one of the best things that's happened to me. That may sound to people like a massively OTT comment, but tb remembers me breaking down in tears when he was cooking a stew and I hadn't had chance to weight all the ingredients so as to work out the nutritional information for my diet diary. And weighing yourself twice a day – that's a tyranny. And it's easy to say that it's self-inflicted, but the pressures on people to be some idealised size, shape etc is enormous. And not least because, if you're not, you get easily characterised as lazy, greedy, slovenly ... all that sort of stuff.

I would go as far as to say it's mentally and intellectually crippling in large way. And I know it's just me. I've seen someone in a very, very similar situation since I got over it. It was actually very difficult to see – perhaps not least because it was a sort of mirror. But it is life limiting, and perhaps many people don't realise just how many forms it can take – as with what you've described here, for instance.

Standee wrote:

... Wouldn't, without being rude, a sugar tax effectively be a "tax on the poorest"?

I think it would, yes. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not in favour of such a tax – or a fat tax either. I don't think that's remotely the way forward.

The trouble is it's a much more complex issue than I think many people realise – or even want to consider. And equally, I don't think there's a sort of magic bullet.

[DaveO]

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:21 am  

bren2k wrote:

....it's acually very easy to eat a balanced diet, to prepare your own food and to take a reasonable amount of exercise every week - lots of people choose not to however, then complain about the inevitable consequences. I do agree that the food, diet and exercise industries have marketed us into a state of compliance, but it is possible to choose a different way - it just takes a bit of effort to get started.

A lot of people think they are eating a good diet and can be taking exercise only to find they aren't as healthy as they thought. I am a good example.

I have gone to the gym for years (three times a week and I don't mess about either), we eat fresh veg with meals and have been concious of the five-a-day idea every since it came out.

When I was a the gym one day there was a sign up saying free NHS "Well Man" health check. So I signed up fully expecting a pat on the back! Was quite shocked when I was told my BMI was too high so I was technically overweight (I think it was 26.4, can't remember) and that while my waist measurement and cholesterol were Ok my blood pressure was a tad high. The chap doing the check up asked about what sort of food I ate trying to find out where the excess weight may have come from. I mentioned crisps and cheese - he gave me a good idea of just how much fat was in a bag of crisps.

I was hauled in by the GP over the blood pressure and had a blood test only to find the more sophisticated cholesterol test they gave me which measured two types (as opposed to averaging them out) showed I was way too high in one of them.

No I didn't look fat and I didn't eat junk food for my meals but I was partial to my crisps, cheese and the odd bar of chocolate at weekends along with quite a bit of coffee being drunk and I liked my red wine as well but you see as far as I was concerned by diet was healthy because of the good food had at main meal times.

I cut the crisps and cheese out completely (to reduce fat intake and salt which is not good for the blood pressure), reduced the caffine intake (also puts the old BP up) and reduced the alcohol intake (much less sugar and also better for the BP) and I rarely eat chocolate these days. Net result was a BMI under 25, a drastic drop in cholesterol levels and BP back to normal. And it didn't take that long either but the thing is beforehand I thought I was absolutely fine!

Now I am sure if I can be like that there are plenty of people out there who are blissfully unaware that despite the morning jog, the fruit salad for breakfast and what not that they are actually ruining it all because of the odd bad habit they think is pretty innocent. It really doesn't take much to throw you off balance and that is I am sure where the marketing plays a part. M&S Dine in for Two? Loads of calories in these yet it's M&S so its got to be "good" food eh?! That sort of thing.

So as to it being possible to chose a different way, you can but first you need to be informed enough to do it so I really don't see any excuse for not having a really simple food labelling scheme. Next if they just put less of the rubbish in the food in the first place those who are just not bright enough to work it all out won't get hooked on the over-salted, too sugary rubbish.

And finally some people really do struggle to have a healthy lifestyle for all sorts of reasons ranging from physical problems that make exercise difficult or other concerns such as having to do two jobs to make ends meet so they have little time, or looking after disabled children and so on. So I think its an over simplification to say "it is possible to choose a different way - it just takes a bit of effort to get started".

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:20 am  

Maybe it's time for Gove to do something useful for once and reintroduce Domestic Science to the curriculum?

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:29 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Maybe it's time for Gove to do something useful for once and reintroduce Domestic Science to the curriculum?

It's interesting that 'domestic science' was considered to be such a lowly subject – at least in the traditional sense. I do wonder how many mothers were like mine, in withdrawing their children from classes. My mother was convinced it was a waste of time and money. An in terms of cooking skills, I think she somehow assumed that one would develop them when one needed them. You didn't have to be taught anything.

Reading Bad Food Britain by Joanna Blythman, she highlights how domestic science was changed from actually cookery lessons to 'food tech', whereby pupils learnt, for instance, how big food manufacturers design and develop new products. Which, of course, is the antithesis of what is needed. I gather things are improving and going back to the actual cookery classes.

But I do think my mother's attitude also reflects the wider problem of a society where food is not really valued as much beyond fuel.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:31 am  

DaveO wrote:

<snip>

But then other doctors would point out that the entire cholesterol issue has been vastly over done and that saturated fat in diet is not related to heart disease – and even that low cholesterol, certainly after 50, is actually unhealthy.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:45 am  

Mintball wrote:

But I do think my mother's attitude also reflects the wider problem of a society where food is not really valued as much beyond fuel.

Now you've really given me a soap box to stand on!

Too many people, in fact, almost everyone I meet, views a meal as just "something you do", I often find people saying to me at 12:30 "it's lunch time", by which they mean it is the time of day they believe they should eat, the "3 square meals a day" is a myth (and I have no idea where it comes from) no other creature in the world gorges itself at pre-determined times, they eat when they're hungry, feast before known times of famine etc.

I have, on many occasions (andd I have said before, I am spoilt) eaten half or two thirds of a really good or even great meal, and then sat back and said "that was wonderful, but I have had enough" only to be met with looks of horror and incredulity for actually leaving something, in fact, the only two places I have never encountered that attitude are France and Italy, strange isn't it how those places have given the world some of it's most amazing food (at this point I should point out I am not a great fan of spicy food, so I cannot really comment on some of the more exotic dishes)

One thing I did find astounding was the food in America, the biggest democracy in the free world (if you're white and have money, of course), it was dire, yes the portions where HUGE but it really wasn't much good, in a 17 day trip I had one good meal in a fish restaurant in Chicago [and by hell di we pay for it], my travelling companions seemed to enjoy quantity over quality.

Food is something we really need to reconnect with, on the few occasions I have looked after my niece the one thing she wants to do is cook, nothing complex, but she is interested, once she gets to "big school" that interest will not be nurtured or supported.

She will, however, be taught that "if John has a ladder that is 2m tall and he places it against a wall at an angle of x degrees from the ground, the angle at the top will be y", based on some ancient latin/greek (excuse my ignorance, but I discarded this irrelevant knowledge some time go) theory. Which will serve her 4/5th of f'k all in adult life.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:56 am  

Being overweight is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, a self-inflicted condition. There are those people who have a medical/glandular problem, but there are infinitely more who do not.

I personally know now, and have worked with in the past, a pretty fair number of overweight people. I have yet to meet one who was not overweight because of over eating and drinking, and/or taking too little physical activity (which doesn't necessarily include formal exercise).

I agree that food packaging is misleading and that organisations like weight watchers are just awful, but they're far from the primary source of the so-called 'obesity epidemic'.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:00 am  

By the way, if anyone would like a humorous (and not entirely inaccurate) view on this subject, put 'Tim Minchin Fat Kids' into youtube.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:04 am  

Rock God X wrote:

weight watchers are just awful

Explain....(please)?