This 'sugar tax' crap is doing my head in!

That's just nonsense, I mainly drink Pepsi max, but diet coke variants still taste horrible whilst full fat coke tastes great.
The lack of sugar in diet coke isn't the only difference in the formula, things like different levels of secondary sweeteners and how they may well adjust the ratio of the other ingredients to make up for it which also affects the taste as there are various ways to "trick" the tastebuds to enhance one flavour over another and the balance is as much an art as a science (what should work on paper may be greeted with disgust in the real world).

The fact you are ok with Pepsi max suggests it's not the sweetener i alone that puts you off diet coke vs normal coke but one of the other differences between the formulas.
Personally I've never been a big fan of full sugar coke or pepsi for some reason, but I'm fine with both sugared and sugar free tango & fanta.
 
The lack of sugar in diet coke isn't the only difference in the formula, things like different levels of secondary sweeteners and how they may well adjust the ratio of the other ingredients to make up for it which also affects the taste as there are various ways to "trick" the tastebuds to enhance one flavour over another and the balance is as much an art as a science (what should work on paper may be greeted with disgust in the real world).

The fact you are ok with Pepsi max suggests it's not the sweetener i alone that puts you off diet coke vs normal coke but one of the other differences between the formulas.
Personally I've never been a big fan of full sugar coke or pepsi for some reason, but I'm fine with both sugared and sugar free tango & fanta.

Pepsi max and diet coke use different sweeteners. The point being that even someone accustomed to artificial sweeteners can still hate diet versions of drinks and like full fat drinks.
 
So PHE are now calling for healthier ingredients or smaller portions to be used to stop the obesity crisis, I thought that’s what the sugar tax was supposed to do.

Have to say I agree with this guy

Christopher Snowdon, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, said: “The nanny state zealots at PHE have lost the plot.

“The only way companies can meet these targets is by shrinking products. We’ve seen this happen with chocolate bars and other sugary treats.

“Now the Great British Rip Off is being extended to all food products.”

All that will happen is prices will stay the same/increase slightly and sizes reduced.

And to top it all off

Officials have hinted food firms who do not slim down their products could be hit by taxes or new regulations.

TThe answer? Tax tax tax. They aren’t interested in this at all, it’s just a way for them to cut funds to some areas (schools as per the sugar tax) and then use money from this new tax to make up for it.
 
The other thing they said was to try and limit your breakfast to 400 calories and lunch to 600 calories :eek: Try and limit? What are all you fat ******** eating? :D

Christ, I don't even have 400 calories for breakfast and lunch combined :p
 
The other thing they said was to try and limit your breakfast to 400 calories and lunch to 600 calories :eek: Try and limit? What are all you fat ******** eating? :D

Christ, I don't even have 400 calories for breakfast and lunch combined :p

Well, for instance a Tesco chicken salad sandwich has 465kcal alone, that's before a bowl of frosties, and the crisps with the meal deal.
 
Yep, this is exactly what will happen, some people need guiding through life step by step so it would seem and the rest of us suffer as a result.

I'm all for people being given all the information and letting them make sensible decisions but it just doesn't seem to work. Doesn't help that you now get fat people questioning that being overweight is bad for them.
 
The other thing they said was to try and limit your breakfast to 400 calories and lunch to 600 calories :eek: Try and limit? What are all you fat ******** eating? :D

Christ, I don't even have 400 calories for breakfast and lunch combined :p

Doesn't really matter what calories you eat at a meal as long as you're hitting your daily target. For you only having 400 combined between breakfast and dinner, you must be having a big tea :o
 
My issue is taking away the decision making from people. If you choose to drink yourself fat, your problem.

I got stung again the other day in Pizza Hut - ordered a refillable dispensed pepsi, and got pepsi max. Wasn't told this until I took a sip and asked them.

If you're gonna get rid of it, bloomin' tell me!
 
My issue is taking away the decision making from people. If you choose to drink yourself fat, your problem.

I got stung again the other day in Pizza Hut - ordered a refillable dispensed pepsi, and got pepsi max. Wasn't told this until I took a sip and asked them.

If you're gonna get rid of it, bloomin' tell me!

Well you ordered a pepsi and got a pepsi. You should be more specific when you order.
 
Doesn't really matter what calories you eat at a meal as long as you're hitting your daily target. For you only having 400 combined between breakfast and dinner, you must be having a big tea :o

Yea, of course, but I will presume that the people having the large breakfast and lunch are also having a large tea as well, hence we have an obesity crisis :p

I don't usually have a big tea either personally, I'm probably on about 1500 calories a day in general. This allows me to indulge every now and then with a take away / treats and still maintain my weight at sensible levels.
 
I support the sugar tax because we have an NHS.
If had the American system (don't want that) then 'let me get as fat as I want' would be fine.

Unfortunately people can't control themselves and it' ggoing to cost somewhere. May as well tax unhealthy food.

I feel very lucky I hate fizzy drinks but food would catch me out. Still, I support it, as it does seem the only way is to hit people in their pockets.
 
People cant take ownership of their own bodies so the companies are getting the blame. Fair enough if its regarding kids - but again the parents need to be educated/penalised.

The government for years said dont eat fat its bad, meanwhile people are stuffing their faces with carbs day and night <--- The real root of the issue.
 
Doesn't bother me, I dont drink fizzy drinks. When I am out for a meal, I drinking water.

Lets see if years down the line with cuts to full fat coke and diet coke this, zero sugar that. All the chemicals they put in to these drinks to make up the taste for lack of sugar will lead to some form of next generation cancers.

Then watch people blame somebody else instead of themselves.
 
Last edited:
I support the sugar tax because we have an NHS.
If had the American system (don't want that) then 'let me get as fat as I want' would be fine.

Unfortunately people can't control themselves and it' ggoing to cost somewhere. May as well tax unhealthy food.

I feel very lucky I hate fizzy drinks but food would catch me out. Still, I support it, as it does seem the only way is to hit people in their pockets.

There's no such thing as unhealthy food though, "food" isn't unhealthy, too much of a specific food can be though. Food that's high in Saturated fat is often cited as being unhealthy, yet saturated fat is required in the production of hormones, natural bodybuilders will benefit from having a lot of fat in their diet to produce testosterone. Also if you have no fat in your diet you will die, period. Sugar is now being attacked as unhealthy, yet if you're an athlete or compete in sports, or do any intense exercise you can get away with having sugar, especially around training times, and it'll be very beneficial to do so.

The real killer is people who are sedentary, do little to no exercise, and also consume excess calories from any source. The way to tackle this is through education and encouraging work places and local councils to provide opportunity and places for people to be active.
 
Back
Top Bottom