Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:38 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

'Food as fuel' isn't necessarily a bad attitude to have. I mean, if you want your nice new shiny car to run properly and last a decent amount of time, you don't fill the tank with used chip fat. Food IS fuel - it's just that some people make poor choices as to what that fuel should consist of.

Food as fuel is hardly likely to make people value spending any more than they think they can get away with. It's fuel – so you buy the cheapest, most 'convenient' variety around and, when the cost of living rises, you complain about the cost of food and demand it become ever cheaper.

If, on the other hand, you actually really enjoy food, you'll be far less likely, I would suggest, to buy and eat lots of (highly) processed stuff; you'll be more likely to cook from fresh regularly and also be more likely to educate yourself about related matters – what is pumped into your food, for instance.

In terms of your analogy, if you want your car to run well and last well, you don't simply look for the cheapest option from the nearest pump (simply because it is the nearest).

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:39 pm  

To add to that - it isn't just the quality of food that's important. Quantity plays just as vital (if not more vital) a part in determining whether or not we end up overweight. I know a very overweight chap who prepares all of his own meals from fresh ingredients. His problem is that he eats (and drinks) too much, not that he doesn't eat the right things.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:13 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

To add to that - it isn't just the quality of food that's important. Quantity plays just as vital (if not more vital) a part in determining whether or not we end up overweight. I know a very overweight chap who prepares all of his own meals from fresh ingredients. His problem is that he eats (and drinks) too much, not that he doesn't eat the right things.

I would suggest, though, that quality can also sate far better.

As an example, I make chips about four times a year – I don't have a deep dryer or a chip pan, so it's a bit of a performance.

Anyway, when I do, we have very few – but enough to be satisfying. What struck me a year or so ago, though, when working away from home, was how many more crappy chips we'd all eat when we were working through lunch and the conference centre people would bring us in a plate of crappy chips. You stuff them – for two reasons: 1) because you're not sitting down properly to eat; 2) because they taste poor and so you don't bother to slow down to appreciate the taste.

And that's without mentioning the presence of high levels of MSG* in some processed foods, which are increasingly thought to switch off the body's ability to feel and recognise that it is sated. There is some belief that aspartame and artificial sweeteners do something similar.


* Far, far higher levels than in soy sauce.

[DaveO]

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:54 pm  

Mintball wrote:

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.

One of the two types was over 7 (5 or lower is supposed to be OK). It did drop like a stone much to the surprise of the GP when I changed my diet and I reckon it was down to cutting out the crisps and consuming quite a hit less red wine which I had become rather partial to!

Where does the "...that low cholesterol, certainly after 50, is actually unhealthy." come from? I am over 50 and my GP was obviously well aware of that and had I not managed to reduce it myself they were lining me up for medication to lower it, some sort of tablet I believe.

I think of the two types of cholesterol one is considered "good cholesterol" and it's that one I was OTT on. I must admit Iwas quite surprised that if it was considered "good" why was having a lot of it "bad"?

Anyway it dropped rapidly when I changed my diet so that was just even more confusing as I had cut out stuff that is bad for you yet the good cholesterol went down .

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:58 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Rock God X wrote:

To add to that - it isn't just the quality of food that's important. Quantity plays just as vital (if not more vital) a part in determining whether or not we end up overweight. I know a very overweight chap who prepares all of his own meals from fresh ingredients. His problem is that he eats (and drinks) too much, not that he doesn't eat the right things.

I would suggest, though, that quality can also sate far better.

As an example, I make chips about four times a year – I don't have a deep dryer or a chip pan, so it's a bit of a performance.

Anyway, when I do, we have very few – but enough to be satisfying. What struck me a year or so ago, though, when working away from home, was how many more crappy chips we'd all eat when we were working through lunch and the conference centre people would bring us in a plate of crappy chips. You stuff them – for two reasons: 1) because you're not sitting down properly to eat; 2) because they taste poor and so you don't bother to slow down to appreciate the taste.

And that's without mentioning the presence of high levels of MSG* in some processed foods, which are increasingly thought to switch off the body's ability to feel and recognise that it is sated. There is some belief that aspartame and artificial sweeteners do something similar.


* Far, far higher levels than in soy sauce.

As I said, both play a role. I think it's too easy to fall into the trap of laying all the blame at the door of the food manufacturers. Many are undoubtedly unethical, but that's only part of the problem.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:01 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Rock God X wrote:

'Food as fuel' isn't necessarily a bad attitude to have. I mean, if you want your nice new shiny car to run properly and last a decent amount of time, you don't fill the tank with used chip fat. Food IS fuel - it's just that some people make poor choices as to what that fuel should consist of.

Food as fuel is hardly likely to make people value spending any more than they think they can get away with. It's fuel – so you buy the cheapest, most 'convenient' variety around and, when the cost of living rises, you complain about the cost of food and demand it become ever cheaper.

If, on the other hand, you actually really enjoy food, you'll be far less likely, I would suggest, to buy and eat lots of (highly) processed stuff; you'll be more likely to cook from fresh regularly and also be more likely to educate yourself about related matters – what is pumped into your food, for instance.

In terms of your analogy, if you want your car to run well and last well, you don't simply look for the cheapest option from the nearest pump (simply because it is the nearest).

Exactly. Which was entirely my point. It's not a bad thing to see food as fuel, it's a bad thing to buy rubbish fuel.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:11 pm  

DaveO wrote: One of the two types was over 7 (5 or lower is supposed to be OK). It did drop like a stone much to the surprise of the GP when I changed my diet and I reckon it was down to cutting out the crisps and consuming quite a hit less red wine which I had become rather partial to! Where does the "...that low cholesterol, certainly after 50, is actually unhealthy." come from? I am over 50 and my GP was obviously well aware of that and had I not managed to reduce it myself they were lining me up for medication to lower it, some sort of tablet I believe. I think of the two types of cholesterol one is considered "good cholesterol" and it's that one I was OTT on. I must admit Iwas quite surprised that if it was considered "good" why was having a lot of it "bad"? Anyway it dropped rapidly when I changed my diet so that was just even more confusing as I had cut out stuff that is bad for you yet the good cholesterol went down . Dr Malcolm Kendrick is certainly saying things along these lines. There's a host of stuff out there from reputable sources. And much comes back to the (so-called) French Paradox. The French have, apparently, similar levels of cholesterol to us – yet have lower rates of hearts disease, even though they eat a diet higher in (natural) saturated fat. The 'paradox' has been particularly commented on in relation to the south west of the country, where as well as cheese, cheese and more cheese, this is the area that has created such culinary delights as duck confit and foie gras. Actually, the foie thing reminds me of a point: they don't fatten the ducks or geese up with a diet of fatty foods – it's grains that are used. A quick Google produced this at the top of the results. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... mbers.aspx This also looks at the idea that there is 'bad' cholesterol and 'good' cholesterol. And to repeat: the only 'proof' that a diet high in saturated fat leads to high cholesterol leads to heart disease was found by Ancel Keyes, who lied. In essence, after WWII, there was a sudden boom in heart-releated deaths in the US. People obviously wanted to know why. Keyes believed he knew – saturated fat = high cholesterol = heart disease. So he set out to prove it (which is a bad way to start anyway). His first study in the US supported his belief. He tried the same on a wider scale, with the Seven Countries Study, which also 'proved' his theory. The trouble was, Keyes had actually surveyed 22 countries. Unfortunately, the results from 15 of them didn't suit his desired results, so he 'forgot' them. But the impact of his lies continues to be felt. You might want to read Kendrick's The Great Cholesterol Con – although plenty of other people are saying the same basic things. Unfortunately, cholesterol-related drugs are a big money-spinner, just as are margarines etc that promise to lower cholesterol.

DaveO wrote: One of the two types was over 7 (5 or lower is supposed to be OK). It did drop like a stone much to the surprise of the GP when I changed my diet and I reckon it was down to cutting out the crisps and consuming quite a hit less red wine which I had become rather partial to! Where does the "...that low cholesterol, certainly after 50, is actually unhealthy." come from? I am over 50 and my GP was obviously well aware of that and had I not managed to reduce it myself they were lining me up for medication to lower it, some sort of tablet I believe. I think of the two types of cholesterol one is considered "good cholesterol" and it's that one I was OTT on. I must admit Iwas quite surprised that if it was considered "good" why was having a lot of it "bad"? Anyway it dropped rapidly when I changed my diet so that was just even more confusing as I had cut out stuff that is bad for you yet the good cholesterol went down . Dr Malcolm Kendrick is certainly saying things along these lines. There's a host of stuff out there from reputable sources. And much comes back to the (so-called) French Paradox. The French have, apparently, similar levels of cholesterol to us – yet have lower rates of hearts disease, even though they eat a diet higher in (natural) saturated fat. The 'paradox' has been particularly commented on in relation to the south west of the country, where as well as cheese, cheese and more cheese, this is the area that has created such culinary delights as duck confit and foie gras. Actually, the foie thing reminds me of a point: they don't fatten the ducks or geese up with a diet of fatty foods – it's grains that are used. A quick Google produced this at the top of the results. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... mbers.aspx This also looks at the idea that there is 'bad' cholesterol and 'good' cholesterol. And to repeat: the only 'proof' that a diet high in saturated fat leads to high cholesterol leads to heart disease was found by Ancel Keyes, who lied. In essence, after WWII, there was a sudden boom in heart-releated deaths in the US. People obviously wanted to know why. Keyes believed he knew – saturated fat = high cholesterol = heart disease. So he set out to prove it (which is a bad way to start anyway). His first study in the US supported his belief. He tried the same on a wider scale, with the Seven Countries Study, which also 'proved' his theory. The trouble was, Keyes had actually surveyed 22 countries. Unfortunately, the results from 15 of them didn't suit his desired results, so he 'forgot' them. But the impact of his lies continues to be felt. You might want to read Kendrick's The Great Cholesterol Con – although plenty of other people are saying the same basic things. Unfortunately, cholesterol-related drugs are a big money-spinner, just as are margarines etc that promise to lower cholesterol.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:14 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

E.. It's not a bad thing to see food as fuel ...

I'd suggest that an attitude that denies you one of life's great pleasures (which you have to have anyway) is hardly a very coherent one.

Don't forget – particularly religious people think pleasure in food is a bad thing.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:30 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Rock God X wrote:

E.. It's not a bad thing to see food as fuel ...

I'd suggest that an attitude that denies you one of life's great pleasures (which you have to have anyway) is hardly a very coherent one.

Don't forget – particularly religious people think pleasure in food is a bad thing.

I'd suggest that seeing food only as a source of pleasure is a far less coherent attitude, personally. There are plenty of people out there who derive great pleasure from cakes and biscuits and hardly any from fresh vegetables. Only when we begin to see food as the stuff that makes our bodies work can we make truly informed decisions about what to eat and what to avoid eating.

And I never once said pleasure in food was a bad thing. You can take pleasure in food whilst viewing it as the fuel it so obviously is.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:44 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

I'd suggest that seeing food only as a source of pleasure is a far less coherent attitude, personally. There are plenty of people out there who derive great pleasure from cakes and biscuits and hardly any from fresh vegetables. Only when we begin to see food as the stuff that makes our bodies work can we make truly informed decisions about what to eat and what to avoid eating.

And I never once said pleasure in food was a bad thing. You can take pleasure in food whilst viewing it as the fuel it so obviously is.

I think that, within the context of this discussion (and how 'food as fuel' was first mentioned) it was in terms that meant that food was treated as something almost inconvenient, to be bought as cheaply as possible, to have as little time spent shopping for it and preparing it as possible, and to be consumed while doing something else, so that it doesn't 'waste' time.

I'd also suggest that there are plenty of people out there who claim to be 'informed', but who don't know how their bodies work in terms of the 'fuel' they put in them. They see, for instance, fat as having no nutritional benefits, never mind the one of sating etc.