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. ttaskmaster


    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 8,026

    Location: Reading, UK

    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.
  2. Somnambulist


    Joined: Jun 17, 2010

    Posts: 9,411

    Location: London

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


    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 29,902

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


    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 8,026

    Location: Reading, UK

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


    Joined: Jun 21, 2006

    Posts: 29,693

    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.


    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.
  6. offitmassive


    Joined: Jun 1, 2012

    Posts: 92

    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
  7. b0rn2sk8


    Joined: Mar 9, 2003

    Posts: 4,064

    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.
  8. krooton


    Joined: May 9, 2004

    Posts: 24,649

    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.