1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sugar Tax, Yes or No?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Orionaut, Oct 26, 2015.

  1. Noxvayl

    Gangster

    Joined: Jan 27, 2014

    Posts: 121

    Location: Waterlooville

    Depends on your definition... mine is it artificially increases your dopamine levels in the brain, without any drop in its reward over time. Hence you can easily find that sugary foods take up more and more of your diet over time.

    Not the same scale as "hard" drugs, but still the same reward imbalance within your brain.

    Fruit comes with fibre that helps your body, along with many other bits. Sweets, drinks and sweet tasting foods that are artificail do not :p
     
  2. Noxvayl

    Gangster

    Joined: Jan 27, 2014

    Posts: 121

    Location: Waterlooville

    All smokers I know are thin... and I thought the opposite, that your metabolism increases with nicotine consumption.

    Stress definitely does increase your metabolism though. I guess I relate smoking with added chemical stress to my body.
     
  3. ttaskmaster

    Suspended

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 8,859

    I meant appetite, which is probably related to metabolism as I didn't get so hungry when I was smoking, while still being 9st and underweight while still chowing on big-ass pizzas and Fatty Arbuckle's specials!!

    Just weird that this is the least I've ever eaten, but without even trying is the most I've ever weighed, whereas I'd previously struggled to put any pounds on!!
     
  4. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 12, 2004

    Posts: 27,813

    Well by any formal definition, the word "drug" excludes food, all food has the potential to alter neurotransmitter levels in some way by different pathways.
     
  5. Noxvayl

    Gangster

    Joined: Jan 27, 2014

    Posts: 121

    Location: Waterlooville

    So sugar is a food then? As far as I am aware it is a constituent of some foods, artificially in most cases these days.

    I'm getting pedantic here, which I don't like. My point was simple; we should recognise sugar's effect on our chemistry and be more careful about how we consume sugar. The definition is a moot point; it doesn't really matter, so long as you don't get stupid and think it is "natural" and therefore not that bad for you.
     
  6. Energize

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 12, 2004

    Posts: 27,813

    Of course sugar is a food, it's present in many natural foodstuffs and we have extensive metabolic pathways for processing it, all carbohydrates are broken down to sugars in our gut. Our brain directly runs off sugar so we would die without glucose in our blood...
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2016
  7. Noxvayl

    Gangster

    Joined: Jan 27, 2014

    Posts: 121

    Location: Waterlooville

    I know we convert carbs to glucose, but we don't need to consume glucose in order to survive.

    I'm guessing garlic doesn't qualify as a drug then, since it is food, but happens to be an antibiotic as well.
     
  8. CaptainRAVE

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Nov 21, 2004

    Posts: 31,573

    Coco pops have been ruined. I hate our government and what this country has become.
     
  9. Somnambulist

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jun 17, 2010

    Posts: 9,574

    Location: London

    So does hugging and watching videos of cute animals on social media. Nobody develops an addiction to spooning table sugar - people gravitate towards hyperpalatable foods which typically contain a combination of sugars and fats and have sweet/salty flavour combinations because they taste good. Your body doesn't know you're in a time of virtually unlimited cheap food and survival isn't an issue, so ignoring liquid calories which bypass satiety mechanisms, it's quite happy for you to consume loads of high energy food because extra fat = better chance of survival in times of famine.

    Would suggest everyone read The Hungry Brain by Stephan J. Guyenet, Ph.D.
     
  10. nicknack35

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Apr 5, 2014

    Posts: 1,476

    Everything in Moderation and not over doing it. There is good sugars and bad sugars just like Fat good fats and bad fats just like carbs. Knowing a good balanced diet is not hard i used to weigh 18 half stone few years ago now im 12 and half and alot of that was doing alot of research going to the Gym
     
  11. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,192

    I am not sure if there are good and bad sugars, it is just sugar.
     
  12. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,481

    Ultimately all sugars are converted to glucose in our system, but fructose is more work to process than sucrose. You end up getting the same amount of sweet for a lower number of calories.
     
  13. krooton

    Caporegime

    Joined: May 9, 2004

    Posts: 25,356

    Location: Leafy outskirts of London

    Wah? All carbs are 4 calories per gram, doesn't matter if it is fructose, glucose, lactose, starch, etc. Unless you are referring to the thermic effect based on the effort to digest different carbs, which is totally negligible.
     
  14. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 9,695

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Fructose acts differently in the human body though, its worse than normal sugars.

    Its only more recently, relatively that the impacts of different sugars are properly being understood. eg

    http://treeoflifecenterus.com/fructose-and-diabetes/

    "Contrary to glucose, fructose creates a high concentration of fats and lipoproteins in the body and contributes to unhealthy lipid profiles. One major lipid increase with fructose is the triglycerides. It also converts to activated glycerol 3 phosphate (g-3-p), which is needed to convert free fatty acids into triglycerides. The more g-3-p one has, the more fat one can store. It also increases the activated APOB100, a primary lipoprotein that carries cholesterol to blood vessels and leads to fatty deposits. It decreases the high-density lipoproteins, which help take pathogenic cholesterol away from the vessels and back to the liver."
     
  15. krooton

    Caporegime

    Joined: May 9, 2004

    Posts: 25,356

    Location: Leafy outskirts of London

    So bad sugars and worse sugars :D
     
  16. Arthur Hucksake

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 14, 2010

    Posts: 2,991

    Location: Nottingham

    I'm being tested for Diabetes at the moment. The ironic thing is, I consume an abundance of sugar alternatives. They have literally screwed up my body.

    I think fat content is probably a better thing to tackle than sugar.
     
  17. Somnambulist

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jun 17, 2010

    Posts: 9,574

    Location: London

    Fructose alarmism is sooooo 2010. Is Robert Lustig still preaching his fruit-phobia and clinging onto that study where they gave obese people about 6 litres of fruit soda and referring to epidemiological studies?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19592634
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18996880
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20047139
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20086073
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991323/
     
  18. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,559

    Location: Wales

    Well you do have that choice, it's just manufactures decided your "it tastes bad" response to a change is less costly than the "omg it's so expensive" response to the change.

    Don't worry though coke is still 60 grand of sugar a bottle
     
  19. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,481

    Type 1 or Type 2?
     
  20. krooton

    Caporegime

    Joined: May 9, 2004

    Posts: 25,356

    Location: Leafy outskirts of London

    Fat is more satiating though, it is WAY easier to eat too much sugar than too much fat. Soft-drinks, smoothies, fruit juice, haribo, even normal fruit, are super easy to consume in excess.

    As for sugar alternatives, unfortunately not all are great, many cause digestive issues for people (hence all the 'laxative effects' warnings for stuff with xylitol/sorbitol/maltitol/etc) and still have a GI response, even if lower than sugar.
    Others are fine though, stuff like erythritol, stevia and monk fruit won't cause any issues.