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

[PaulCa]

Ha! Yes, excess of vitamins that are not fat soluable will be peed out, but all 3 macro-nutrients will be converted in to fat in calorific excess. You can get obese from eating too much protein too, it just happens less as protein is more expensive and more filling.
Pretty cheap and easy to down a pint of oil and sugar, go over your calorific needs, and still be hungry an hour later.

Also, there are essential proteins and essential fats. There is no such thing as an essential carb. And before you possibly pull the old "Brain needs glucose!!1" trick, there is a little thing called gluconeogenesis.

I was aware of the bodies various emergency conversion of protiens to sugars, but I thought the particular type the created was not consumable by the brain.

Besides, those mechanisms are last resort emergency processes designed for when you are starving, practically dying and atrophying your own muscle protein. Trying to use them to avoid eating carbohydrates is ludicrous and potentially dangerous.

What is it people have with carbs? Is it the obesity crisis that is fueling the rejection of them? A normal diet should get most or all of it's energy from carbs and fats. Protein is for tissue and cell construction. I hear all manor of non-sense about sugar rushes and carb crashes, with people not understanding how long the buffer chain of energy is in the body and just how tightly regulated your blood sugar actually is, it does not swing around that much if you are healthy. It's almost as non-sense as people suggesting some food make your blood more acidic. Your blood being even a tiny fraction more acidic is a serious condition and very, very dangerous.

Also, I was not aware that excess protein can or will be converted to fat. Recent articles I have read surrounding the influx of "Protein enhanced foods" suggests that anyone with a normal diet including some meat and fish will already have excess protein to the order of twice the recommended requirements. Also, that eating excess protein, without going overboard has little to no ill effects. The short is, you DO NOT need extra protein unless you are embarking on some serious muscle building training.

 

[Felon]

The problem isn't carbs per-se, but the amount of processed food we eat that contains "refined carbohydrates". The problem with these is that like with a grain such as rice - you take something that is perfectly healthy and good for you, then it's washed and processed so that all of the useful stuff is removed - specifically fibre, resulting in white rice. The end product is something that has a high glycemic load and holds very little in the way of useful nutrients - essentially, below the neckline - there's not that much difference to eating a bowl of rice and eating a mars bar.

If you're physically active, do lots of exercise - then it does make sense to eat refined carbs, because food high in glucose is very good at replenishing the glycogen in your muscles. The problem however is that most people who eat these processed foods aren't athletes or gym rats, they're sat at desks or in the cars all the time. They're not only eating foods that are high in calories and energy, but they also elevate blood sugar levels which can trigger the hormonal processes that lead to fat storage in the liver. A disproportionally high amount of the calories we eat are coming from foods high in sugar and low in fibre.

If you look at the evidence, it's especially damning in children. Before the 1970s there wasn't a single recorded occurrence of type-2 diabetes in children, now we have an epidemic of it. In the 1970s kids were eating fat and also starchy carbs (potatoes etc) but no type-2 diabetes. It's after 1980, when the processed food 'revolution' started, when food started to become something we do for pleasure, and was re-engineered to provide that, rather than sustenance. One of the critical elements of that re-engineering, has been the addition of very high levels of refined carbohydrates (sugar, white bread, white rice, etc.) all of which taste amazing.

 

[PaulCa]

when food started to become something we do for pleasure

This. I believe is the nub of the problem. That and the high commercialisation of the same.

I don't think there is much inherently wrong with refined foods, if not used in excess. I have lots of refined sugar in my diet and have always been under weight until the past 5 years when I have reached towards the top end of my band. However I attribute that to a change in behaviour and diet combined. I became less active and I started gorging on peanuts while watching TV. When I stopped the peanuts outright I lost 5 kilos in 2 weeks. Peanuts are one of the most nutritional foods available with, I believe, only Amonds topping them. 600 calories per 100 grams and they get sold in 1 Kg bags! I could easily eat a full 200g bag every evening!

I hate the term "Processed food" because almost all food is processed, it's such a loaded term open to interpretation. Someone the other days said they don't like processed cheese, when I asked what they did like and they snark'ly said, "Unprocessed cheese", I simply responded with "You mean Milk?"

 

[Felon]

I hate the term "Processed food" because almost all food is processed, it's such a loaded term open to interpretation. Someone the other days said they don't like processed cheese, when I asked what they did like and they snark'ly said, "Unprocessed cheese", I simply responded with "You mean Milk?"

Not all food is processed at all, a, beef steak, (any steak or meat, excluding cheap cuts which haven't been injected with water to bulk it up) and literally all fruit and vegetables aren't processed - you can literally eat them right out of the ground, or cook them right off the animal, which is exactly how our digestive systems have evolved.

Processed food is where we're able to create food that fulfils a business objective; that is - we can process food to make it as cheap as possible, or we can process it to make it last forever - or so we can freeze it and export, or we can process it so that it tastes so unbelievably good, by combining ingredients which don't normally exist in any natural food source, like putting sugar and fat into something at the same time.

As an example; cheap pies (Fray Bentos) which you can buy for 99p a tin, are a perfect example of processed food. In order to make the pastry without it costing too much - they use artificial synthetic fat (trans fat) rather than proper lard or butter (dietary fat) that you'd normally use for making a pie. This means they can produce lorry loads of the stuff as cheap as possible, which would be impossible without the sorts of industrial processes that can produce the trans fats, (which incidentally are banned in many countries, just not the UK) Trans fats are currently implicated in the high levels of coronary heart disease in the UK.

 

[PaulCa]

I'm being more pedantic than that. Butchery is a process. Hanging the meet to drain/mature whatever-they-call-that is a process. Cooking it is a process.

Also... if everyone in the world rejected industrial farming and food processing for shelf life and ease of manufacturing, there would not be enough food to feed the world. Organic farming produces something like 20% less yield than industrial farms. Some crops even more. But the "Organic trend" is a whole different argument.

You can bet that starving people in the world would not be demanding organic produce and would happily have a frey bentos pie.

Finally a lot of this kind of processing of food is nothing new, it's just done in more industrial ways today.

My granny used to keep the fat from the frying pan and soak bread in it. Anything left would be put in the fridge and used later to add tasty fat to things.

 

[Felon]

I'm being more pedantic than that. Butchery is a process. Hanging the meet to drain/mature whatever-they-call-that is a process. Cooking it is a process.

That's incorrect, processed food has specific definitions - it doesn't include cooking, or butchery, however it can include curing or drying. Processed food is something that has been altered in some way, during the preparation, usually by adding or removing ingredients.

The kind of processing I refer to, (specifically added sugars, added engineered fats and ingredients) in large amounts, with the specific intent of making food that's cheap to produce, or can be engineered to be 'hyper palatable' IS a new thing. Because it didn't exist before the 1980s, low and behold - it's around that time that all the health problems in the developed countries started to occur.

Also... if everyone in the world rejected industrial farming and food processing for shelf life and ease of manufacturing, there would not be enough food to feed the world. Organic farming produces something like 20% less yield than industrial farms. Some crops even more. But the "Organic trend" is a whole different argument.

You can bet that starving people in the world would not be demanding organic produce and would happily have a frey bentos pie.

Finally a lot of this kind of processing of food is nothing new, it's just done in more industrial ways today.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem.

We don't have to outright reject all forms of food processing - I agree, in order to feed the population, we need to have ways of making enough food that everyone can afford, whether it's organic, if we need to rely on scientific and industrial processes to provide methods to make this possible then that's fine.

That isn't what's happening though, we've gotten to a point where there's a fast food outlet on every single street corner. Where the petrol station doesn't just sell petrol - you have to be herded through a maze of chocolate, sweets and crisps to get to the checkout. Where 60% of the food in the supermarket is engineered to provide maximum pleasure, with no regard for useful nutrition or health at all AND it's very expensive. Essentially - processed food is used to make as much money as possible, with no regard for the health or wellbeing of the consumers, that's why it exists - you can make more money from it, than you can from natural food sources and ingredients.

Finally, saying that a starving person would happily eat a Fray Bentos pie, doesn't really advance your argument that processed food isn't a problem, because we're entering one of the biggest health crisis in our society, since the invention of the cigarette.

 

[PaulCa]

Fair points. I don't however doubt that the "non-processed" marketing dollar is ka-chinging lots of food companies too. Along with rubbish over hyped information miss-represented studies and making one food a boogy man and another a savour before moving on to the next. You know the usual fodder for social media health nuts.

You mention processed foods have "specific definitions" are those published anywhere? I'm not asking sarky, I'm interested.

 

[Energize]

no they are not.

Basic economics.

you think they shouldn't be allowed to put bad stuff in food and drinks, but they should be allowed to put bad stuff in food and drink?

seems you're agreeing with the way it now is. they aren't allowed to put anything they like in food, stuff that poisons for instance, but they can put all the sugar and salt that they want in.

i can guarantee those who opposed and regulation on smoking once they realised how bad it was, were saying the exact same silly things as you're right now. 20/30 years time we will look back on posts like this, and most will think how crazy it is that we allowed to much harmful sugar to be put in our food and drinks without us knowing, and some others will learn nothing and post the same stuff you're saying right now about the latest discovery of terribly food that's being over eaten and causing mass issues.

No that's not what I said and you know it. I can't decipher the latter part of your post.

 

[Energize]

Not the old "what about people who play sports" (etc) strawman?

Are these millions of other activities an impending national health crises threatening to overwhelm the NHS?

No, and when/if they are we can address those too.

No I'm not referring to sports, but that's not actually a straw man if the risk of injury exceeds the potential health benefits.

Things like f1 driving for example have not been banned.

When you start talking about "threatening the NHS" you are talking about adding inconsistency into the law based on how popular an activity is. If a risky activity becomes popular enough to meet the subjective criteria of "threatening the NHS" it would need to be banned.

 

[Somnambulist]

Obesity is complicated

 

[Freakbro]

No I'm not referring to sports, but that's not actually a straw man if the risk of injury exceeds the potential health benefits.

Things like f1 driving for example have not been banned.

When you start talking about "threatening the NHS" you are talking about adding inconsistency into the law based on how popular an activity is. If a risky activity becomes popular enough to meet the subjective criteria of "threatening the NHS" it would need to be banned.

No one is banning anything, they are using minor taxation to influence the behaviour of manufacturers and consumers, due to an observable modern problem affecting society. You would say this is the sort of issue the Govt is there to address.

And to describe why it's such a problem, just read @Screeeech previous posts, he explains it far more accurately and eloquently than I can

 

[Felon]

It's a bit of a straw-man i'll admit, but I've I've seen people make similar arguments before; "If we're going to impose bans or taxes for substances which are bad for you, then why don't we impose bans or other risky activities such as cycling or motor racing"

It all comes down to scale, if you look at substances which are bad and use smoking as the example - almost 80k people die a year in the UK, compared to around 100 from cycling. Add to the fact that cycling drastically improves health - it adds far more than it subtracts from public health, compared to smoking with only subtracts - it doesn't add anything positive to public health at all other than misery and insane health costs.

You can pick out just about any form of risky activity, such as rock climbing, skiing, football, rugby, bmx, motorcross, hiking, mountaineering, parkour, etc - all of which are risky and do incur injuries and deaths, but the numbers pale in comparison to public health nightmares, such as smoking or obesity - which kill tens of thousands and affect millions - whilst adding no benefits whatsoever, and as such - do warrant control and legislation.

 

[D.P.]

I was aware of the bodies various emergency conversion of protiens to sugars, but I thought the particular type the created was not consumable by the brain.

Besides, those mechanisms are last resort emergency processes designed for when you are starving, practically dying and atrophying your own muscle protein. Trying to use them to avoid eating carbohydrates is ludicrous and potentially dangerous.

What is it people have with carbs? Is it the obesity crisis that is fueling the rejection of them? A normal diet should get most or all of it's energy from carbs and fats. Protein is for tissue and cell construction. I hear all manor of non-sense about sugar rushes and carb crashes, with people not understanding how long the buffer chain of energy is in the body and just how tightly regulated your blood sugar actually is, it does not swing around that much if you are healthy. It's almost as non-sense as people suggesting some food make your blood more acidic. Your blood being even a tiny fraction more acidic is a serious condition and very, very dangerous.

Also, I was not aware that excess protein can or will be converted to fat. Recent articles I have read surrounding the influx of "Protein enhanced foods" suggests that anyone with a normal diet including some meat and fish will already have excess protein to the order of twice the recommended requirements. Also, that eating excess protein, without going overboard has little to no ill effects. The short is, you DO NOT need extra protein unless you are embarking on some serious muscle building training.

Great post.

It is very alarming the people that are putting themselves in potential harm by massively over-consuming protein and making out that carbs are some kind of deadly toxin. Excess protein leads to increased metabolic stress of the liver and kidneys, leaching minerals from bones and elevated cancer risk.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045293/

 

[Energize]

No one is banning anything, they are using minor taxation to influence the behaviour of manufacturers and consumers, due to an observable modern problem affecting society. You would say this is the sort of issue the Govt is there to address.

And to describe why it's such a problem, just read @Screeeech previous posts, he explains it far more accurately and eloquently than I can

Replace "ban" with "tax".

I would definitely not say this is what a government is there for, I am not part of the far left. A nanny state is something I strongly oppose.

Everyone knows that excess calorie consumption is a big problem that effects the NHS, I'm probably more informed on the subject than you are having worked in public health. My opinions on taxation and regulatory issues are simply different because they are based on a political philosophy of individual freedom.

If anything part of this public health problem could be attributed to the NHS system itself. It completely discourages personal responsibility because no matter how badly someone looks after their health it does not affect their healthcare costs in the slightest.

Out of interest, considering the huge cost to the NHS of unsafe sex, would you also vote for the introduction of a sex tax if it were actually possible?

 

[Tefal]

Out of interest, considering the huge cost to the NHS of unsafe sex, would you also vote for the introduction of a sex tax if it were actually possible?

Well condoms are taxed so there already is.

They reduced it to 5% but can't go lower on vat as part of eu tax law iirx

 

[Energize]

Well condoms are taxed so there already is.

They reduced it to 5% but can't go lower on vat as part of eu tax law iirx

People using condoms aren't the ones that are the issue though.

I thought medical products were exempt from Vat and duty completely? Nothing surprises me about the EU anymore. *sigh*

 

[CaptainRAVE]

So now all the sugar products are smaller, but we are paying the same. Once again the British consumer gets screwed. What an oppressive country the UK has become.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

All contraceptive were cut to 5% VAT from 17.5% by Gordon Brown.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

As for sugar tax.. I don't know why anyone would think this would not see prices for all types of drinks increase. The companies have increased the prices on their non-sugar drinks very obviously and very predictably to rake the profit - in part because of projected losses on their sugar drink sales - not the government.

This tax isn't there to directly dissuade the consumer from buying sugar drinks. They are there to change the market so that the huge companies making these drinks are encouraged to make non-sugar drinks, or to increase their marketing and production of non-sugar drinks by literally taking a chunk out of their sugar drink profit, automatically making non-sugar variants more profitable.

 

[Tefal]

People using condoms aren't the ones that are the issue though.

I thought medical products were exempt from Vat and duty completely? Nothing surprises me about the EU anymore. *sigh*

Well the sugar tax isnt a fat tax either is it

I think theyr e classed as hygene products not medical like tampons but I'm not sure