Sugar Tax

antrobus

kabayiri wrote: »

Does anyone else feel our consumer calendar contributes to the problem of over consumption of sugar?

Off the top of my head, in approximately a quarter of a year, we have had

- Christmas day with choccies and selection boxes
- New Years Eve over indulgence
- Valentines day choccies
- Mothers day choccies
- Easter chocolate eggs

Every single event has a plethora of treat displays in all the food retailers, and for weeks after as they discount off the overstock.

You left out Father's Day and Halloween. Most couples have anniversaries as well. (F***, it's mine tomorrow, I'm gonna have to buy something.)

And there are birthdays.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

I think I made my point badly.

My point is that by turning sugar into a drink rather than consuming the fruit whole you enable the consumer to consume vastly greater quantities of sugar. This, IMHO, is probably not a good thing on balance given the weight problems many people have.

Interestingly enough, the current scientific wisdom is that we should be cutting back on 'free sugars'. So eating fruit is fine, all the various sugars in fruit do not count as free sugars; but the sugars in fruit juice count as free sugars, and thus is just as bad as drinking full fat coke.

Not a lot of people know that.

Shrimply

antrobus wrote: »

I am pretty much 100% convinced that at no point in history have we evolved to consume Coca Cola, no matter what it is sweetened with.

Your argument is both fallacious and absurd.

The way you talk about evolution is absurd. Evolution is based on what a population experiences. You don't evolve as a prerequisite to the consumption of something.

So as processed food has become more and more common, yes the human population is evolving to cope with whatever stresses that puts on our physiology. Given we've been exposed to sugar, processed or otherwise, for longer that alternative sweeteners there is really no argument that the human body hasn't genetically had more of a change to adapt to sugar consumption.

antrobus

Shrimply wrote: »

The way you talk about evolution is absurd. Evolution is based on what a population experiences. You don't evolve as a prerequisite to the consumption of something.

So as processed food has become more and more common, yes the human population is evolving to cope with whatever stresses that puts on our physiology. Given we've been exposed to sugar, processed or otherwise, for longer that alternative sweeteners there is really no argument that the human body hasn't genetically had more of a change to adapt to sugar consumption.

You're the one that started off by arguing that humans had 'evolved' to consume large quantities of sugar sweetened carbonated beverages.

Stop digging.:)

Shrimply

antrobus wrote: »

You're the one that started off by arguing that humans had 'evolved' to consume large quantities of sugar sweetened carbonated beverages.

Stop digging.:)

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that.

antrobus

Shrimply wrote: »

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that.

You might as well stop digging.:)

Shrimply

Digging implies I'm wrong, I stand by my argument,you mis-quoting me isn't going to change that.

kabayiri

antrobus wrote: »

Interestingly enough, the current scientific wisdom is that we should be cutting back on 'free sugars'. So eating fruit is fine, all the various sugars in fruit do not count as free sugars; but the sugars in fruit juice count as free sugars, and thus is just as bad as drinking full fat coke.

Not a lot of people know that.

I have read similar on the running/sports sites.

I believe that the body has to do more work to break down the sugars contained in fruit.

Although...there is a tendency for the fruit we buy to get sweeter. (Our vet made the same complaint about feeding our rabbit store bought carrots and other veg. It seems rabbits struggle to process the sweeter stuff)

mwpt

kabayiri wrote: »

I don't get the shopping channel obsession with these nutri bullet blender type things*.

There's a good argument for consuming pulp mass alongside the sugars contained within it.

(*other machines capable of mashing food into a bland gunk are available)

I have had a daily smoothie for the last, oh, 6 or 7 years.

It started because I didn't like eating solid food in the morning but didn't want to skip the meal, so had a simple half banana, blueberries, almond milk and oats smoothie each morning.

I evolved it over time and now make a larger one of which I drink half for breakfast and the rest through till lunch time:
Full fat milk, almond milk, 1 egg, protein powder, half banana, blueberries, mixed seeds, mixed nuts, kale, spinach, cinnamon (edit: forgot oats).

That's my most common mix but I occasionally throw in a extra such as a chunk of fresh ginger, a bit of carrot, other mix berries, celery.

No real science behind it, I just like the fact that every day I'm getting a mix of fruit (not overboard) and veg regardless of how the rest of the day turns out (often worked late).

kabayiri

mwpt wrote: »

I have had a daily smoothie for the last, oh, 6 or 7 years.

...

No real science behind it, I just like the fact that every day I'm getting a mix of fruit (not overboard) and veg regardless of how the rest of the day turns out (often worked late).

I can completely accept personal choice in this, especially when you throw in the fact you are consciously choosing the ingredients with a purpose.

It's the "real science" bit though. These shopping channel features run a 20 min+ feature; where the 'expert' is asked a load of questions, usually by some pretty girl expressing admiration and nodding intently.

It's pretty shallow tv stuff, devoid of any real evidence. The reality is probably too complicated to achieve a simple sale.