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. platypus

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2003

    Posts: 38,971

    Location: Rhône-Alpes+Cambridge

    Nope; the war on fat is what has landed us in the mess we're in. Nothing wrong with fat at all, if consumed sensibly as part of a varied diet and if you do exercise.

    The bigger issue, of course, being our sedentary lifestyles.
     
  2. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,140


    When you are heavier you also burn far more calories per mile and per minute.

    100 calories per 10 minutes is at an easy pace, 200 calories in 10 minutes at race pace. You were talking about hard running.



    Moreover, you were making it sound like 20 minutes is a long time to run, at the easy pace you are describing that is barely a warm up. You can easily and safely run 1-2.5 hours a day after a little training burning 700-2000 calories, plus additional calories burned afterwards due to increased MBR
     
  3. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,140


    350 calories a day for any sustained period leads to death, and before that severe muscle wasting and cognitive impairment, with permanent damage to kidneys, other organs and the brain. People that claim to be on such low calorie diets tend to either be lying or are extremely bad at calculating quantities/portions, and snack a lot and excuse those calories.
     
  4. Psycho Sonny

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 21, 2006

    Posts: 30,918

    your obviously a runner who has been doing it for many many years. i'm talking beginner levels here for people who are fat, unhealthy. can't even run 40 yards without gasping for breath for 5 minutes.

    no normal person runs for more than an hour a day at the gym. also it's really bad for your knees. as in there comes a point where your doing more damage than good.

    i'd say running for up to 2 hours now and again is okay. however regularly 1 hour is probably a good limit to have. you can easily compliment this or exchange it with other forms of cardio which are lower impact. like swimming, rowing, cycling, etc.

    also this - When running at 10.78 km per hour, a 125-lb. person can expect to burn 660 calories after 10 km, according to statistics from Harvard Medical School.

    i usually ran 10k in 55-60 minutes and i was burning around 700-900 calories. but i used to round it down to 600 to be conservative. that's the problem with most people. they round down calories eaten and round up exercise. so i used to do the opposite. round up calorie intake and round down calories burned.

    so i would say 125-150 calories per 10 minutes is probably correct. 200 calories sound like double what the Harvard Medical School is saying. So you would need to be going at around 16-18 km/h constant and weigh around 80-90kg for that sort of calorie burn.

    so it's best to tell people it's 100 calories per 10 minutes of decent constant paced running. otherwise it's highly likely they will be overestimating their calorie burn. there is no way i could burn 200 calories per 10 minutes.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2018
  5. ttaskmaster

    Suspended

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 8,859

    Nope - Just the M&S pasta thing and some coffee with 2 sugars.

    Nope, no steroids, supplements, vitamins, shakes or anything like that. Just one of these pasta things and coffee (no milk).

    I read what it said on the packet. No calculating needed.
     
  6. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 9,696

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    You need to put yourself forward for medical science to experiment on then, you are literally going against everything we understand about the human body. Your not even eating enough to sustain brain activity at 350 per day.
    Are you brain dead? j/k

    Be interesting to see what you are calculated as needed on the Mifflin-St. Jeor equation (included in link below)
    or to save you clicking if you don't want to :
    Men: 10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) – 5 x age (y) + 5

    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/245588.php

    That will give you a basic idea of your needed calories per day
     
  7. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 9,696

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Oh sorry forgot to say that then needs to be multiplied by a factor based on activity level, its not the end answer, again the link contains what you need to know
     
  8. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,481

    350 calories a day was the Allen diet. It was used before insulin therapy to keep diabetics alive for another month or so before they died.
     
  9. ttaskmaster

    Suspended

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 8,859

    Well, sorry to go against and upset proven, irrefutable medical science and everything, but that's just how it goes... Perhaps I should take up smoking again.

    It says 1626. There's also a link to a calculator, which confirms my calculations.

    That multiplier puts it at 1951.
    Even these days, I doubt I'm taking on that much - One meal in the evening, plus... (calculates coffee calories)... about 128 calories in coffee - No way does that add up to over 2000 calories! Even if I ate at McDonalds every night, that'd only be 1400!
     
  10. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 9,696

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Have you ever discussed this with a doctor? Its basically impossible what you are saying with what we understand about the human body, I think this is why the few of us commenting back are doing so.

    So that says you need 1951 cals to sustain your schedule and you claim to be able to sustain on 350.
    Honestly if thats the case I am sure (not joking here) medical science would like to know. You could make a fortune on making yourself available for scientific studies
    Coke would probably love you "I drink 10 litres of coke a day a dont gain weight", that sort of thing ;)
     
  11. Somnambulist

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jun 17, 2010

    Posts: 9,575

    Location: London

    Studies always reveal people grossly underestimate their calorie intake even under the supervision of an RD. It can often be up to 50% higher than reported. Doesn't make you a terrible human being, just that statistically very few people can accurately track their intake (and I'd wager those that do are OCD members of the fitness community by and large).

     
  12. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 9,696

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    yeah I know, its very easy to do. Plenty of things the pack size is multiple portions, they know you will eat/drink the whole thing, but its to be able to fill in the front of the pack.
    Things like them small bottles of fruit juice "contains 2 servings", or even worse container is 250ml, then you see "based on a typical serving of 100ml" when you look closely

    But if hes only really eating a 350 cal meal plus a few coffees there isn't much opportunity to miscount
     
  13. ttaskmaster

    Suspended

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 8,859

    Yep, that's usually the only useful thing anyone ever says... It's like talking to Apple support - "You're clearly not holding the iPhone in the right way, then!!".
    Yes, it's utterly impossible, yes I should be dead, yes I'm lying and secretly chowing down five dozen Crispy Cremes every meal, yes I'm grossly misreading '350cal' on the packet, yes all the other responses... and not once have any such responses convinced me, especially on here. I'm more interested by those that explore the reasosn why certain foods and lifestyles lend themselves more to weight gain/loss/neither, given how I used to be fairly underweight until I quit smoking, but again I'm sure smoking has no actual effect either...

    It wasn't easy and I was hungry and moody for a lot of it, but I obviously survived - 350, plus 128 in sugared coffee.

    I doubt they'd actually pay me.

    OK, so at most that's 1,000 cals....

    No need to even count, it was right there on the packet.
     
  14. Somnambulist

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jun 17, 2010

    Posts: 9,575

    Location: London

    I guarantee if there was a metabolic ward available and intake was strictly administered...
     
  15. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,140

    As the body just digested itself and the organs failed.
     
  16. ttaskmaster

    Suspended

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 8,859

    ... that half of the forum would still bitch and whine about how the medical profession doesn't know what it's talking about?
     
  17. Psycho Sonny

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 21, 2006

    Posts: 30,918

    i think we can all agree anyone having 350 calories per day for 2 months would lose a hell of a lot of weight.

    i don't think it would be that bad for their body until they reached over a month in.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Sands#Hunger_strike

    i believe if you watch bobby sands documentary on netflix. there is a doctor which tells you what happens at each stage of starvation.

    he was eating 0 calories per day. however he was locked in a cell so not exactly burning a lot of calories as a normal person who is out and about and working, etc. i think after 6 weeks was when his body was really being battered. he lasted 66 days without food. it's after that time (6 weeks) it turns into an avalanche quickly and things go really bad in an instant iirc from the documentary.
     
  18. offitmassive

    Associate

    Joined: Jun 1, 2012

    Posts: 94

    Location: Hereford

    No. I see it as a way to stop people getting fat or fatter. Just make simple fruit and veg a lot cheaper so it's like a big carrot in front of the donkey. You find many families, on benefits buy nasty cheap fatty foods because they have to. If cheaper healthy food was an option or led that, way cuz it was cheaper .. Sugar, tax wouldn't be needed. I'm against it cuz that ***** chef from Essex said about it. I'm a type 1 diabetic and need lucozade for hypoglycaemic attacks. But now lucozade have halved their glucose amounts to stop being taxed... My job is now twice as difficult to get out of the hypoglycaemic episode
     
  19. b0rn2sk8

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 9, 2003

    Posts: 4,684

    What are you on about? Fruit and Veg is really cheap in the UK, like really cheap. The problem is convenience, its 1000% easier to bung a frozen pizza in the oven vs making something from scratch.
     
  20. krooton

    Caporegime

    Joined: May 9, 2004

    Posts: 25,356

    Location: Leafy outskirts of London

    Sometimes it seems like people only want to eat the expensive side of the fruit spectrum, which admittedly are kinda pricey per kg.
    Still, veg > fruit.