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

Eating and drinking for pleasure, as opposed simply for just sustenance is in my opinion, combined with inactivity and poor education are the primary causes. I think sugar plays a part in all of that - but mostly in the way it's used in processed foods along combined with fat, to produce products which taste incredible, contain thousands of calories and are probably addictive, or not far off.
I always think of a part in a programme that Dr. Xand van Tulleken did -- explaining how the combination of fat plus sugar is highly addictive. Basically, try to eat a pot of cream on it's own; you can't It's too much. Same goes for sugar on it's own. However combine sugar with cream and it turns into the most addictive food-stuff on the planet. This is the basis for so much junk food/processed food and people that are used to eating that **** have just forgotten what real flavour is.
 
I always think of a part in a programme that Dr. Xand van Tulleken did -- explaining how the combination of fat plus sugar is highly addictive. Basically, try to eat a pot of cream on it's own; you can't It's too much. Same goes for sugar on it's own. However combine sugar with cream and it turns into the most addictive food-stuff on the planet. This is the basis for so much junk food/processed food and people that are used to eating that **** have just forgotten what real flavour is.

Yeah, it's the same with natural foods which are high in dietary fat too - like a good sirloin steak, on paper it has lots of saturated fat and there are lots of calories in a steak, but steak is really filling and satisfying, I always feel like I've eaten really well if I have a steak, (or any real meat including chicken for that matter) and don't want to eat anything else for ages.

I was always puzzled how I was able to sit and just churn through an entire tub of Pringles (500-600 calories) or a packet of chocolate biscuits (even more) without feeling even slightly full and in many cases still feeling hungry.
 
Why have some drink such as Lucozade and Iron bru had vast amounts of sugar taken out of them (29g > 11g) but coke and different variety's of coke have not?
Coke Cola knows from experience that altering the classic Coke receipe is a no no, just read up on the story of 'New Coke' which is something Coke Cola came up with in response to the Pepsi challenge.
 
It is almost all soft drinks now. Sprite, Fanta, Dr Pepper, Ribena, Tango, Lilt, Monster and Relentless.

It's all to get past the sugar tax.

Coke and Pepsi are almost the only full sugar drinks left

Coke, Pepsi, original Monster (smaller 440ml can now), Red Bull are the only ones that come to mind.
Rockstar had crazy sugar amounts prior, up to 355 calories in a 500ml can...! Down below 5g/100ml now though and tastes horrible.
 
Coke, Pepsi, original Monster (smaller 440ml can now), Red Bull are the only ones that come to mind.
Rockstar had crazy sugar amounts prior, up to 355 calories in a 500ml can...! Down below 5g/100ml now though and tastes horrible.

McColls still seem to be selling the original stuff, something like 70g of sugar in the one I bought yesterday, absolutely orgasmic, I will be stocking up tomorrow.
 

42564018250_25c178fc54_b_d.jpg

re-carbonate this thread
?

from the same hymn book
The sale of energy drinks could be banned in England to anybody under 18, amid fears they are damaging children's health, the prime minister has said.
The government has launched a public consultation on its plans to make it illegal to sell the drinks to children.
Energy drinks contain high levels of sugar and caffeine and have been linked to obesity and other health issues.
The government is asking for views on what age the ban should apply to, but gave under 16 and under 18 as options.
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have the power to implement their own bans.

I suppose it is popularist to save the children but don't the adults need similar medicine too ?
(but for adults is it alcohol, rather than sugar(diabetes/obesity) that costs the economy more.)

So seems a half measure , the products advertising, glamorization and association with sport clearly attract susceptible childreN/'adults', so like cigarettes, the end game is stop this and web/tv advertising too,
with appropriate 'consequences' picture on the plain brown drink cans.
 
But currently they all are now reduced sugar and contain sweetners. So nowhere near the sugar as before .

Of course most large stores have agreed to not sell them to under 16s.
 
The chocolate bars I used to get from Lidl that are basically fake Snickers and Mars have become so small it's a joke. I have to eat about 3 to feel like I've got my sugar fix.
 
Er? :confused:

In Germany, they sell salt with natriumferrocyanid. :eek:

But together with energy drinks, things should be banned:
Coca Cola;
Pepsi;
Coffee;
Iceteas;
Fruit juices from concentrates with artificial sweeteners and other sweet liquids with artificial sweeteners resembling juices;
Cigarettes;
McDonald's everything.
 
Since the sugar tax came out I've noticed that the cheap 35p no brand energy drinks from Premier shops (that have been 35p for 10+ years) are now down to 30p. How they manage that!
 
Since the sugar tax came out I've noticed that the cheap 35p no brand energy drinks from Premier shops (that have been 35p for 10+ years) are now down to 30p. How they manage that!

Do they contain sugar, though?
But prices reduction can come from lower production expenses, for instance.
 
If we can legally sell carcinogens in cigarettes, why can't they sell cyanide in Energy Drinks to cull some people? Surely as long as it's on the packet and a huge warning label attached, it should be equitable right?

Hell it'd be far cheaper than cancer causing cigarettes as well, remember 50% of NHS budget is spent on the last year of someones life, can't have a last year if you keel over in a few minutes.

Solved the housing crisis guys, don't thank me.
 
Do they contain sugar, though?
But prices reduction can come from lower production expenses, for instance.

These are the full fat ones in silver and red. They do a diet/no sugar one in silver and blue too but they don't taste a nice.

They say they contain sugar.
 
Do even the basic facts not matter any more?
Societies children are still not drinking them though
.. someone published post-sugar-tax coke classic sales, a few pages back, which are still sustaining.

.. but coke are potentially diversifying (running scared ? only peanuts $4B ) buying Costa
 
Is it not just bad parenting to let kids be drinking all this rubbish?

Do the government really have to get involved unless the tax is just a ploy and they don't really care about the health of kids...
 
Back
Top Bottom