All this will do is increase obesity and ill health I mean that's what we've steadily been doing for the past 100 years. How many ancient humans were obese and artificially sustained? None. They all died if they were too fat, no one would feed them. Nowadays we cater for and artificially sustain and deeper establish obesity. We try to ruin everybody else's snacks because some fatties see them as "food" because they are too lazy too cook actual food, and then we take out the sugar from the snacks so as to even further tell the fatty that is now OK to eat and drink snacks and treat them as food.
This 'sugar tax' crap is doing my head in!
- Thread starter MrRockliffe
- Start date
And funnily enough we have this study
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-06/uoea-no062018.php
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-06/uoea-no062018.php
Low/zero sugar drinks have existed for ages lol. So if fatties were actually trying to not be fat and unhealthy then surely there would be no fat people left any more would there?
Bought a box of Mr Kipling's Viennese Whirls the other day and they now taste like cack lol. But I'm not fat so I can easily say I will never eat another Viennese whirl in my life it's not hard for me, but how will that stop a fatty gobbling up a whole pack and washing it down with Diet Coke? It wont.
Bought a box of Mr Kipling's Viennese Whirls the other day and they now taste like cack lol. But I'm not fat so I can easily say I will never eat another Viennese whirl in my life it's not hard for me, but how will that stop a fatty gobbling up a whole pack and washing it down with Diet Coke? It wont.
Because they aren't targeting the people trying to diet etc theyr e targeting the 50%plus of the population that is overweight and not really aware why or cares.
You're own example proves the merit of the idea the "fatty" is now consuming a few hundred less calories.
The whole point of this act is jist to remove needless calories from drinks. When a bottle of drink people grab because theyr e thirsty has a slang calories as a small meal it makes a problem a slow growing one that now affects 60%+ of the population.
By altering the market those drinks now have 1 calorie if that.
Thus with no change in a person's routine the govenrment could have cut anywhere from 200-600 calories from a person's diet.
That's huge and will have an effect.
Amazing...you bring up mind control propogana and your usual bs while calling it a charade and stupid that theyr tackling the billion pound marketing efforts that are the reason those sales are at those checkouts
You of all people should be all over that rule as it is one of the few things that backs up your usual bull**** about how people are manipulated.
But I guess the retail industry isnt the govenrment so they can't be bad lol
Yes, I am firmly against any government involvement in such things like this.
I’m not emotional about it, I just don’t agree with them getting involved with such things, this nanny state business is annoying as hell.
Of course I am.
I will get a post together tomorrow when I’m not on my phone with answers to your questions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
How will you pay for the fat ******* NHS that we currently require, and that is going to get worse?
Specifics please, what do you want them to do instead?
In Norn Iron almost half the government budget is spend directly on healthcare, and we're screwed on waiting lists etc.
What steps would you take and make?
I can see the reason as to why this is happening though. We know shops are paid huge amounts to put certain products on prominent 'end isle' locations, almost all of these are on offer. They place them there because they have done studies which show this is where they get the most exposure and most likely to be picked up by customers. It works very well which is why they do it and those products shift huge volumes. You would be surprised about how much control brands and supermarkets have over what you buy because of where it is placed in the store.
Today I took a stroll through Tesco to do my weekly shop and the end isle contained:
Fruit, mostly grapes (full price) - off to a good start
Vegetables, mostly potato's (full price) - great, better than cake I guess.
Raw meat 3 for £10 - fine, standard offer there every week
Pizzas, sausage rolls, microwave burgers and processed cold meats (ham, sausages, fridge raiders), all half price. - Everything on this shelf has poor nutritional values and is high calorie.
Raw sausages, raw meat 'ready meals' (hunters chicken etc), cheese, fruit juice, all on offer - again all high calorie
Polish drinks and energy drinks, all on offer - all high sugar, high calorie....
Jars of coking sauce with associated pasta or noodles depending on what brand is on offer - not great but passable, always a reduced fat option
Branded bread products, mostly white, all on offer - not the end of the world but could have more wholemeal
Branded cake bars and cake, all on offer - no comment....
Chocolate and sweets, all on offer - yup....
Crisps, all half price - hmm.... starting to see a pattern
chocolate and sweets again, all half price - round 2...
Alcahol
Alcahol
Frozen processed foods, pizza, chips, ice cream, all on offer - nothing low calorie to be seen and all highly processed
Frozen processed foods, pizza, chips, ice cream, all on offer - round 2 nothing low calorie to be seen and all highly processed
All of these offers are mostly the same every week, just the brands shuffle around each week.
So within the whole of a large Tesco there were 16 prominent end of isle locations that contained food 13 of the 16 contained products that should only be consumed in very small proportions. They were all on offer (the 'healthy choices' were not) with deep price cuts and in the biggest pack/portion size available. We know shops shift massive volumes from these few shelves around the store.
You wonder why people make poor choices when the wrong ones are in your face constantly with price cuts combined with prominent marketing campaigns on TV, online and posters.
Has anyone else noticed that things like plates and bowls are gradually getting bigger? That also cant be helping much. We know no one likes an empty plate....
Today I took a stroll through Tesco to do my weekly shop and the end isle contained:
Fruit, mostly grapes (full price) - off to a good start
Vegetables, mostly potato's (full price) - great, better than cake I guess.
Raw meat 3 for £10 - fine, standard offer there every week
Pizzas, sausage rolls, microwave burgers and processed cold meats (ham, sausages, fridge raiders), all half price. - Everything on this shelf has poor nutritional values and is high calorie.
Raw sausages, raw meat 'ready meals' (hunters chicken etc), cheese, fruit juice, all on offer - again all high calorie
Polish drinks and energy drinks, all on offer - all high sugar, high calorie....
Jars of coking sauce with associated pasta or noodles depending on what brand is on offer - not great but passable, always a reduced fat option
Branded bread products, mostly white, all on offer - not the end of the world but could have more wholemeal
Branded cake bars and cake, all on offer - no comment....
Chocolate and sweets, all on offer - yup....
Crisps, all half price - hmm.... starting to see a pattern
chocolate and sweets again, all half price - round 2...
Alcahol
Alcahol
Frozen processed foods, pizza, chips, ice cream, all on offer - nothing low calorie to be seen and all highly processed
Frozen processed foods, pizza, chips, ice cream, all on offer - round 2 nothing low calorie to be seen and all highly processed
All of these offers are mostly the same every week, just the brands shuffle around each week.
So within the whole of a large Tesco there were 16 prominent end of isle locations that contained food 13 of the 16 contained products that should only be consumed in very small proportions. They were all on offer (the 'healthy choices' were not) with deep price cuts and in the biggest pack/portion size available. We know shops shift massive volumes from these few shelves around the store.
You wonder why people make poor choices when the wrong ones are in your face constantly with price cuts combined with prominent marketing campaigns on TV, online and posters.
Has anyone else noticed that things like plates and bowls are gradually getting bigger? That also cant be helping much. We know no one likes an empty plate....
Exactly. So is reducing the sugar content going to change this? Changing sugar content is not going to stop people buying bogof Oreos instead of some proper meat or vegetables. What it will do is further establish that junk food is now ok and people are now ok to keep on buying it under the guise that sugar is now low. Lol.
This is a point I've been making for years now, it seems totally facile to blame the consumer for making poor choices and running into health problems, when just about every shop that sells food is peddling poor quality junk that tastes amazing, and crucially - keeps you going back for more.
I can only speak for myself, but personally - I find it difficult to live healthily in our society, I'm very fit and very physically active, I do a lot of sports and outdoor activities, I'd even call myself decent looking for my age (36). However I find it extremely difficult to make good food choices. A lot of the time I don't eat very healthily - not because I don't want to, but because I just love the taste of bad food.
To give a silly example, when the Dominos pizza across the road from me shutdown a few months ago, I was really happy - not because I went there often (maybe 2-3 times a year), or because I have anything against the place, but because the temptation went with it. I realised that I'd spent several nights a week fighting with myself to not go there and buy a medium stuffed crust pepperoni all to myself, so when it closed - I felt this strange sense of relief..
A few weeks ago the damn thing opened again on the opposite side of the street, and they've been stuffing leaflets through my door, and it's really annoying me - because the temptation to eat some of that pizza is so strong, honestly - I just want the ******* place to disappear. The allure of sitting indoors and watching some of my fave streams in twitch, whilst cramming that hot pizza, with a large coke and one of those big dips - I bet I'm not alone with many people who indulge in similar things...
It feels like some strange game where the objective is to stay in shape, but as soon as you go outside, (or even online) all of the things you encounter, are trying to make you fat and unhealthy.. It's no wonder we are where we are, when you take a step back.
Regarding sugar tax, I can see what the government are trying to do (make some money out of it for the NHS coffers), but for me it's an example of their incompetence, to deal with the largest health crisis we're likely to ever encounter in our lifetimes (with the exception of an epidemic of some sort of killer super virus or something) - This is the best we can expect from an agency that is utterly bankrupt of talent, ideas and gumption.
For me, it's way more complex that just sugar. It's about how we've turned food from something you do for sustenance, to something that is about nothing other than taste and pleasure.
I think a good example of the problem is the expansion of Starbucks in the UK. They're expanding like hell, converting all the old little-chefs into drive through Starbucks, high street chains, Starbucks inside every other supermarket, inside the shopping centre, at the train station - on and on without ever stopping... But how? Why?
As far as I can tell 95% of what's in a Starbucks is bad for you, with some of their drinks weighing in at 450 calories (roughly 1/4th your daily intake from a single drink). There's no regard for anybody's health, or the health of the population, it's simply a game of "make the product taste as amazing as possible, make as much money as possible" and it works very well. Also interestingly - most of their beverages are actually exempt from the sugar tax because coffee is exempt....
Shouldn't someone be looking at this and performing some sort of due diligence - or be asking questions like; "How many Starbucks are enough? 2000? 5000? 10000?" "Do we just let them build these outlets forever?" "Maybe allowing all of these will cause more harm than good?" "Maybe it's not a good thing to allow a rich corporation to exploit the consumer?" "Maybe Starbucks are taking the **** out of everyone?"
It sounds harsh of me to single out Dominos and Starbucks, but with 64% of the adult population overweight or obese - isn't it time to get real? Only a cretin would seriously expect "personal responsibility" to somehow kick in, and save us from the already occurring crisis - we past that point in the 1980-1990s. Personal responsibility doesn't work, it didn't work for tobacco, it's not working for alcohol, it didn't work for seatbelts in cars - neither did speed limits, lastly - it doesn't work for junk food and never will.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 10,862
- Location
- Nottingham
Those large Dominos garlic and herb dips are 700 calories btw, how crazy is that?
I didn't know that, but I do know - that one of those regular pizza express pizzas from the supermarket (the small one) comes in at around 600 calories... It's quite sobering to think that a dip by itself from Dominos, has more calories than an entire regular sized pizza..
Anyone eating 100g of dip with a pizza deserves to get fat
Over the years we've been led by the food industry to depend on larger and larger doses of sugar (and salt) in our food. I'm pretty sure that like anyone recovering from and addiction, those affected will find things a little unpleasant for a while as the body adjusts.
I saw a programme on the TV a few months ago where people "gave up" sugar for a while. I was surprised how messed up some people became without their usual dose. Scary.
I saw a programme on the TV a few months ago where people "gave up" sugar for a while. I was surprised how messed up some people became without their usual dose. Scary.
Last edited:
I think I have come round to the idea of trying to curb the pumping stuff full of "added" sugar. What I am highly resistant of is the proliferation of advice that carbohydrates are bad for you. This is simply retarded.
The other thing I am resistant to, as it makes no scientific sense, is the mantra that high calorie foods are non-nutritious. The claiming that high calorie substances are not nutrient rich is idiotic. I gather these pro-claimants actually mean the foods have a higher calorie per "other nutrient" imbalance. However, even eating a fairly varied, but high calorie diet will still give you enough non-calorific nutrients.
Macro-Nutrients: Carbohydrates, Fats, Protein, Fibre - Things that run your body, build you body, fuel you body, give you energy stores and regulate your digestive system - Daily dosage measure in grams (usually 100s of grams).
Micro-nutrients: Vitamins - Basically complex chemical structures used by the body to create things like enzymes etc. which it has no way to make itself. Daily dosages are measure in milligrams or micro-grams.
Trace elements: Metals (Iron, Potassium (radioactive), zinc, magnesium etc.) and exotics such as cyanide, arsenic, etc. measure in micro or nano grams.
I agree that too much of the macro-nutrients might make you fat, but it depends on a lot more than just diet. Genetics, pre-natal environment, post-natal environment, child hood upbringing, lifestyle, will power, metabolic rate etc.
However we do not see very many cases of deficiencies of the micro or trace nutrients in our society. This is because almost all the food we eat contains more than enough.
So this non-sense that we should all be eating lots and lots of low calorie food is bumph. All you are doing is stressing your digestive system for no real gain. Actually in terms of some things you are putting extra stress on your liver, kidneys and renal systems. Most of the extra micro and trace you get will either be dumped or first have to be processed by the organs to get rid off the excess.
It's just a case of going too far and polarising the argument into non-sense and may actually cause some serious health epidemics itself if not curbed.
The other thing I am resistant to, as it makes no scientific sense, is the mantra that high calorie foods are non-nutritious. The claiming that high calorie substances are not nutrient rich is idiotic. I gather these pro-claimants actually mean the foods have a higher calorie per "other nutrient" imbalance. However, even eating a fairly varied, but high calorie diet will still give you enough non-calorific nutrients.
Macro-Nutrients: Carbohydrates, Fats, Protein, Fibre - Things that run your body, build you body, fuel you body, give you energy stores and regulate your digestive system - Daily dosage measure in grams (usually 100s of grams).
Micro-nutrients: Vitamins - Basically complex chemical structures used by the body to create things like enzymes etc. which it has no way to make itself. Daily dosages are measure in milligrams or micro-grams.
Trace elements: Metals (Iron, Potassium (radioactive), zinc, magnesium etc.) and exotics such as cyanide, arsenic, etc. measure in micro or nano grams.
I agree that too much of the macro-nutrients might make you fat, but it depends on a lot more than just diet. Genetics, pre-natal environment, post-natal environment, child hood upbringing, lifestyle, will power, metabolic rate etc.
However we do not see very many cases of deficiencies of the micro or trace nutrients in our society. This is because almost all the food we eat contains more than enough.
So this non-sense that we should all be eating lots and lots of low calorie food is bumph. All you are doing is stressing your digestive system for no real gain. Actually in terms of some things you are putting extra stress on your liver, kidneys and renal systems. Most of the extra micro and trace you get will either be dumped or first have to be processed by the organs to get rid off the excess.
It's just a case of going too far and polarising the argument into non-sense and may actually cause some serious health epidemics itself if not curbed.
It depends on the definition of "high calorie food" in my mind, simply eating lots of calories isn't the same as eating "high calorie food"
I'd use chocolate chip cookies as an example, per 100g they yield around 450-600 calories which is very high. The problem is - the vast majority of those calories come from three sources; Fat, Carbohydrate and salt, this combination of nutrients doesn't exist anywhere in nature, nothing you grow or hunt contains those three things at the same time.
The problem with this is that the consumer ends up eating something that contains a lot of calories, but is non-nutrient - in the sense that there's very little in it that's good for you, usually because one of the most important nutrients has been removed on purpose; fibre.
If you look across the spectrum of high calorie junk food, from cookies, to pizza, to sweets and crisps, pasta, white bread, white rice etc - they all have one thing in common; very high in fat, carbohydrate, salt and calories, but very low in fibre.
The large amounts of high calorie food (basically processed) that are low in fibre, are the driving force behind the increase in many diseases - especially things such as colon cancer, but specifically type-2 diabetes.
Yeah I'd agree with that in principle, provided you're talking about food marketed as "low calorie" in many cases it's just as bad - but in different ways. Things like diet cola or low calorie desserts - I often end up asking myself; "Why do I need low, or zero calorie food?" The answer is simple; to line the coffers of the food industry - there is no other reason.