[DaveO]

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:51 pm  

Mintball wrote: 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. Now that was very interesting. I think I might buy some butter on the way home As fat as I go I think what the doc was possible on about was an imbalance in one of the ratios as mentioned in that article but it just was not very well explained to me.

Mintball wrote: 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. Now that was very interesting. I think I might buy some butter on the way home As fat as I go I think what the doc was possible on about was an imbalance in one of the ratios as mentioned in that article but it just was not very well explained to me.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:06 pm  

Mintball wrote:

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.

So viewing food as an inconvenience to be acquired as cheaply as possible is the problem then, not viewing food as fuel. Food is fuel, and should quite rightly be viewed in that way - it's not just about pleasure.

Not sure what you're trying to get across in your second paragraph, but it kinda goes without saying that some people who consider themselves to be well informed are, in fact, not so well informed. The same is true in any sphere of expertise.

Re: Sugar Tax : Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:18 am  

Food lovingly prepared is no guarantee that the taste will be better than some mass-produced product.
It depends on who is the chef and it depends on the ingredients.
People may be impatient and want an instant 'hit', but that doesn't mean to say they that they don't know what tastes good and what gives them pleasure.
Food snobs will think otherwise.

I for one have never tasted a home made curry as good as one prepared by someone who knows what they are doing, be it packaged or not.

I eat out not just because it is convenient, but that they do a better job generally.

There is a part of me that likes other people cooking anyway, simply because you know what your getting when you do it yourself. It's the 'the other person's sandwiches are always more desirable than your own' effect.

Re: Sugar Tax : Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:29 am  

Rock God X wrote:

NHS funded one to one nutritional advice, subsidised/free gym memberships/swimming/classes, regular free contact with a 'weight loss practitioner'. It might be costly, but I reckon it'll be significantly cheaper than the alternative.

MIght not be 100% on this but i believe them things are all available, its just that thy are not very well known or advertised

Re: Sugar Tax : Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:36 am  

Mintball wrote:

Even the new traffic light system plays into the hands of the same big food producers – a diet fizzy drink is healthier than a fresh mackerel, FFS.

Not just fizzy drinks, the bog problem at the minute is Sports drinks and energy drinks, its a massive market and they are promoted in the being good for you, if not essential.

The amount of kids playing sport "who need" these drinks is astounding.

My lads play rugby and i will only give them water for training and playing , but its suprising the amount who cannot run round a rugby pitch withouth having some energy drink.

Was an interesting documentray on Panorama a few months ago about it too, you should have seen one of the top nutritionalist in the country and his reaction to Diet sports drinks.

Also the way he explained one of these drink as "would you give you child a glass of water with 10 spoons of sugar in it"

Re: Sugar Tax : Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:39 am  

Links http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18863293 sorry cant link the I players, but http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=act ... 52&bih=809 Or a quick google for Panorama Sports Drinks will bring them up

Links http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18863293 sorry cant link the I players, but http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=act ... 52&bih=809 Or a quick google for Panorama Sports Drinks will bring them up

Re: Sugar Tax : Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:25 pm  

BMJ says 'Oops, we might have got it wrong on saturated fats'. And the unhealthy relationship between the British Heart Foundation and the manufacturers of Flora.

BMJ says 'Oops, we might have got it wrong on saturated fats'. And the unhealthy relationship between the British Heart Foundation and the manufacturers of Flora.

Re: Sugar Tax : Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:46 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

... Not sure what you're trying to get across in your second paragraph, but it kinda goes without saying that some people who consider themselves to be well informed are, in fact, not so well informed. The same is true in any sphere of expertise.

Really just that there is information out there, in the mainstream (for want of a better word) and many people think that, because they know about that, they're informed and can make informed choices.

So for instance, many people think that it's really healthy to eat loads and loads of fruit, without realising that there are sugar implications – which is why nutritionists/dieticians dealing with someone with diabetes will advise against fruit juice.

But the mainstream message is simply that fruit is good per se.

Re: Sugar Tax : Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:26 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Rock God X wrote:

... Not sure what you're trying to get across in your second paragraph, but it kinda goes without saying that some people who consider themselves to be well informed are, in fact, not so well informed. The same is true in any sphere of expertise.

Really just that there is information out there, in the mainstream (for want of a better word) and many people think that, because they know about that, they're informed and can make informed choices.

So for instance, many people think that it's really healthy to eat loads and loads of fruit, without realising that there are sugar implications – which is why nutritionists/dieticians dealing with someone with diabetes will advise against fruit juice.

But the mainstream message is simply that fruit is good per se.

To begin with, there's a difference between eating a whole piece of fruit and drinking a glass of fruit juice. There's little wrong with having a few pieces of fruit a day as part of a balanced diet. Sure, there's some sugar in there, but there's also plenty of beneficial nutrients and usually a bit of fibre, too. As long as you stay fairly active and/or eat the fruit as part of a larger meal, there's little wrong with it.

I'd agree that loads of fruit juice isn't a good idea as most of the pulp is removed and you're just left with a very sugary drink (albeit one containing some nutrients).

Re: Sugar Tax : Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:33 pm  

Hutchie wrote:

Mintball wrote:

Even the new traffic light system plays into the hands of the same big food producers – a diet fizzy drink is healthier than a fresh mackerel, FFS.

Not just fizzy drinks, the bog problem at the minute is Sports drinks and energy drinks, its a massive market and they are promoted in the being good for you, if not essential.

The amount of kids playing sport "who need" these drinks is astounding.

My lads play rugby and i will only give them water for training and playing , but its suprising the amount who cannot run round a rugby pitch withouth having some energy drink.

Was an interesting documentray on Panorama a few months ago about it too, you should have seen one of the top nutritionalist in the country and his reaction to Diet sports drinks.

Also the way he explained one of these drink as "would you give you child a glass of water with 10 spoons of sugar in it"

There's definitely a place for those drinks. Like if you're undertaking intense training or some sort of endurance event. The place certainly isn't on a kids' sports field, I'd agree, but it's even worse when you see people drinking them who aren't even doing anything.