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. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 7,017

    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."
     
  2. krooton

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 9, 2004

    Posts: 24,169

    Location: London

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

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 14, 2010

    Posts: 2,928

    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.
     
  4. Somnambulist

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jun 17, 2010

    Posts: 9,272

    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/
     
  5. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,440

    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
     
  6. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 3,620

    Type 1 or Type 2?
     
  7. krooton

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 9, 2004

    Posts: 24,169

    Location: 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.
     
  8. Arthur Hucksake

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 14, 2010

    Posts: 2,928

    Location: Nottingham

    Not sure. I just take my blood glucose levels at intervals through the day while they tinker with a blood sample in the lab.

    The levels aren't the issue, it's the rate they rise or drop within short spaces of time. i.e 11 after breakfast dropping to 3 less than 2 hours later.

    Over the past few years i've drank a lot of sugar free alternatives, sweeteners in hot drinks, sugar free energy drinks etc which seems to have lead me here. (Now I try avoid any sort of sweet stuff)
     
  9. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 3,620

    I don't believe you. Being told whether you are Type 1 or Type 2 is part of your diagnosis. It has to be, because they're separate conditions with drastically different treatment regimes. And it's not something they mess about with; when I began presenting symptoms I was diagnosed and admitted to hospital within 24 hours.
     
  10. Arthur Hucksake

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 14, 2010

    Posts: 2,928

    Location: Nottingham

    No, I mean I wasn't yet sure. I've got a docs appointment coming up. Had to cancel the last one. They've called me to re-arrange and just asked that I keep taking readings with the GlucoRX thing.
     
  11. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 3,620

    Ah, right, you're not yet fully diagnosed, sorry. Well, there's good news and bad news. The good news is that being an adult, you probably have Type 2. The bad news is that if you're ne of the rare cases of adult onset Type 1, in the event of a no deal Brexit you will be dead within a year as there's no way you will be stabilised in time to get a stockpile of insulin to see you through.
     
  12. Arthur Hucksake

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 14, 2010

    Posts: 2,928

    Location: Nottingham

    And there is now more to the mystery. Spoke to the GP and their concern is that I am producing too much Insulin. This creates a huge crash effect an hour after eating anything, which made the figures appear to be all over the place. Eat a piece of fruit and I go from 13 right down to under 3 within the space of an hour.

    They also mentioned one of the medications that I am on can cause this to happen, so fingers crossed that change will sort it.
     
  13. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,225

    Due to the tax CocaCola have now confirmed that Vanilla Coke has been discontinued in the UK again, RIP sweet prince.
     
  14. krooton

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 9, 2004

    Posts: 24,169

    Location: London

    Haha, people on reddit were losing their **** earlier in the year over this :D
     
  15. UTmaniac

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 9, 2005

    Posts: 4,530

    Location: Here

    Coca Cola have just provisionally bought Costa Coffee from Whitbread for £3.9Bn, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45365893 , will go through early next year if approved.

    Is Coca Cola considered a "fair" tax payer in the UK, or are they in the Starbucks/Amazon etc. pigeonhole? I'm aware of a recent lawsuit between them and HMRC regarding vehicles and taxation.
     
  16. Jumper118

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 17, 2012

    Posts: 4,664

    Location: Leeds

    No
     
  17. Psycho Sonny

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 21, 2006

    Posts: 27,717

    200 calories if i recall correctly is an hour of walking or 20 minutes of constant running at the fastest pace you can manage for that duration.

    there is a saying you can never outrun a bad diet. simply because exercise burns so very little calories. yet a bad diet can literally have thousands of extra calories in it.

    to burn off 1000 calories you are talking running around 17 kilometers at a constant high speed.

    the easiest way to lose weight is simply to eat less not through exercise.


    to get this back on topic. should sugar be taxed? well i think all processed and refined meals/foods/ingredients should be taxed. we need to go back to basics.

    it's mass produced foods full of sugar, chemicals, etc which are the issue. as well as bad information and myths being spread by people who have their own agendas.

    for example cereal bars - should be taxed. porridge - cereal in it's natural form is okay.
    margerine is refined from processed vegetable oils - should be taxed. coconut oil albeit refined is cold processed with no chemicals needed to refine it unlike vegetable oils - shouldn't be taxed.

    the problem is you have morons in power who don't have a clue about real nutrition. taking their advice from celebrity chefs or nutritionists that have been following science produced by those with their own agenda and therefore it's all wrong. you need the right people with the right correct knowledge making decisions.

    tax the stuff which is unhealthy to make the healthy options cheaper. this would therefore mean sugar would be taxed indirectly through this type of taxation. going after soft drinks only isn't the answer. or going after sugar alone isn't the answer either.

    rapeseed oil for instance is being touted as the second coming of jesus. when it's actually really bad for us. all this misinformation is based on studies which are wrong. but now every single product has rapeseed oil in it. why? because it's cheap and using the incorrect studies it looks good on paper so it can be spun as a healthy oil when in reality it's not.
     
  18. Psycho Sonny

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 21, 2006

    Posts: 27,717

    all the big companies can choose where they want to pay their taxes by setting their business up in different ways. the public seem to think we should go after them and make them pay more. that isn't the answer. they will simply move/restructure so they pay less. if you want big companies to pay more tax here then you have to make this country more attractive tax wise so it all goes through here rather than 10% through here and then 90% offshore. to do this you would need to lessen taxes not increase them.

    however morons don't understand how big companies operate. they are worldwide. they aren't like johnny the window cleaner. they have offices all over the world. operations all over the world therefore they can structure their business to pay tax anywhere in the world.
     
  19. ttaskmaster

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 7,433

    Location: Reading, UK

    Cor, necro-quote!!
    Eat less. Calories in vs calories out. The OCUK incontrovertible truth.
    Yeah, I tried that - I once dropped my intake to just 350 cals per day (literally just one M&S pasta salad thing) in food and whatever was in my coffee at the time.... Didn't work. I didn't put on weight, but I certainly got fatter and got quite short-tempered as well.