Sugar Tax

kinger101

antrobus wrote: »

Isn't aspartame produced from bacteria? Aren't bacteria part of the natural world? No one seems to complain about the role they play in similarly produding beer and bread and ........

Not really. The individual amino acids are, but the final steps are a chemical synthesis.

Talking of bread, I sometimes want to punch all these dimwits with a gluten problem. Not the real ones with coeliac disease. But these faddy idiots who are doing on because they are oh so clever. Wheat has been a staple for thousands of years. Yet they read one article in the Observer magazine and decide to unevolve the ability to digest it.

kinger101

antrobus wrote: »

Most things that humans do are unnatural. We built the world we live in.:)

Bit of a non-sequitur. I speaking with reference to the human diet. Yes, most our food is processed so is not natural in that sense. But high levels of sugar in liquid form have never been part of our diet (until say the 1950s).

Mistermeaner

If people are so fu ck ing stupid that they fail to realise that eating and drinking sh it is bad for them or they have no will power to resist then they should be allowed to quietly die.

Honestly can't stand nannying of the herds.

Something on the radio this morning about most adults not getting enough sleep and some divot wanted a campaign go raise awareness. If your tired go to sleep !!!! head.

Another one was about people paying too much for their mobile phone contracts because they didn't shop around and or understand what they really needed. Aka stupid person wastes money.

Rant over.

Malthusian

Shrimply wrote:

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.

This is a completely pseudoscientific misrepresentation of what evolution is. Evolution is a process which takes millions of years to have any noticeable effect. People do not "evolve to cope" when they drink Coke, they just get fat and diabetic.

It would take millions of years for humans to mutate and evolve in a way which gave them radically different digestive processes which made them able to consume added refined sugar in large quantities without ill-effects. Not the mere century that Coke has been around for. And even if it was possible, people who drink Coke a) die earlier and b) are less sexually attractive, so they have no genetic advantage. It is far more likely that people will evolve to not drink Coke.

Generali wrote:

The difference between sugar in a drink and sugar in a fruit is pretty easy to demonstrate. A half pint of apple juice contains the juice from about 5 apples. Try timing how long it takes to eat 5 apples versus drinking the juice and see how you feel after each.

That's why I don't drink half a pint of apple juice in one go, any more than I'd eat four rounds of sandwiches.

Shrimply

Malthusian wrote: »

This is a completely pseudoscientific misrepresentation of what evolution is. Evolution is a process which takes millions of years to have any noticeable effect.

Absolute nonsense. Has it become vogue to accuse people of pseudo-science because you don't fully understand the subject or their argument. Evolution occurs over all time scales (measured as generations not years). And strong enough selection can bring about huge genetic changes within only a few generations through permanent lose of genetic variation.

Malthusian wrote: »

People do not "evolve to cope" when they drink Coke, they just get fat and diabetic

A single person does not evolve to cope, I never said that. If a single generation drinks coke and this imposes a selection pressure that leads to a decrease in the certain genes which cause negative effects from drinking coke in the following generation then there has been adaptation to drinking coke and such subtle effects are highly possible.

Mistermeaner

NHS is !!!!!!ing up evolution allowing the stupid to survive and breed

Mojisola

kinger101 wrote: »

Wheat has been a staple for thousands of years.

Modern wheats are not the same as the ancient varieties.

Modern methods of bread making rush the process and the resulting bread isn't the same.

There are no doubt people who imagine that wheat is bad for them but, if you get bloating or gut problems after eating bread, you'd be daft to keep eating it. It's possible that many of these people would be able to eat properly-made bread from heritage wheats without any problems.

cells

Malthusian wrote: »

This is a completely pseudoscientific misrepresentation of what evolution is. Evolution is a process which takes millions of years to have any noticeable effect. People do not "evolve to cope" when they drink Coke, they just get fat and diabetic.

It might take millions of years to go from one species to another it doesn't take that long to evolve resistance or evolve the ability to do the same thing better degree.

For instance if a new bug arrived that killed 90% but 10% were resistant. Well within a few generation everyone would be resistant to it.

If 10% of the population can digest substance A and the rest cant and there is a period of only A available then again within just a few generations everyone can digest it

It would take millions of years for humans to mutate and evolve in a way which gave them radically different digestive processes which made them able to consume added refined sugar in large quantities without ill-effects. Not the mere century that Coke has been around for. And even if it was possible, people who drink Coke a) die earlier and b) are less sexually attractive, so they have no genetic advantage. It is far more likely that people will evolve to not drink Coke.

evolution stops once the brain can change its environment.
it might then go into hypedrive once the DNA can be accurately manipulated.

cells

Brest milk is 40% sugar as calories.

So is there merit to the idea that humans can not tolerate high sugar diets or that it is bad for humans?

lisyloo

Mistermeaner wrote: »

If people are so fu ck ing stupid that they fail to realise that eating and drinking sh it is bad for them or they have no will power to resist then they should be allowed to quietly die.

I don't think anyone would argue if people got what they genuinely deserved through their own actions.
Trouble is it doesn't work that way.
People don't drop dead they get ill at other's expense.