Sugar Tax

kinger101

cells wrote: »

Mothers might not give 64 ounces of Brest milk a go but if you were Brest fed you obtained 40% of your calories as sugar. So a high sugar diet seems quite normal

If that is the case then being fat is down to calories much nkreso than sugar.

Comparing the diet of an infant that is incapable of eating solids with an adult is pretty pointless. Until man started farming cattle, adults couldn't digest lactose (and still can't in many places).

Yes, being fat is broadly down to eating more calories than you burn. But before the invention of sugary drinks, adult humans didn't ingest large amounts of calories in liquid form. Drinks don't generally have much of a satiating effect, so tend to add additional calories to the diet.

Mistermeaner

Is smoking tabacco natural?

chewmylegoff

cells wrote: »

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?

But breast milk is the diet of a baby which will approximately triple in size during the first year and is incapable of eating solid foods for at least the first four months of that time.

Adults aren't supposed to triple in size in the space of a year and have different dietary requirements....

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

But breast milk is the diet of a baby which will approximately triple in size during the first year and is incapable of eating solid foods for at least the first four months of that time.

Adults aren't supposed to triple in size in the space of a year and have different dietary requirements....

And have teeth. Ouch!!!

antrobus

Shrimply wrote: »

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.

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.

No, Malthusian is right. You are peddling pseudoscientific nonsense, and don't understand how evolution works. How evolution works is quite straightforward. It's a question of mathematics.

For example; foxes chase and eat rabbits. A rabbit in possession of a genetic mutation that enables it to run a bit faster will have a better chance of escaping the fox, surviving, and thus being able to procreate. The slower rabbit gets caught and eaten. Even a very tiny little mutation that enables a rabbit to run just the teensiest bit 1% faster than its companions will be sufficient, over a 100 or so generations, to mean that the mutation will dominate the rabbit gene pool. Thus rabbits will evolve to run faster. (And so will the foxes.)

Evolution is descent with modification.

P.S. A single person has a mutated gene to cope. All evolution starts with individuals.

antrobus

Mistermeaner wrote: »

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

Brutal, and crude, but in possession of more than a grain of truth.

The NHS is indeed frustrating evolution. Evolution works by killing off individuals before they have a chance to reproduce and spread their genes into the next generation, The NHS is dedicated to trying to ensure that people don't die.

cells

chewmylegoff wrote: »

But breast milk is the diet of a baby which will approximately triple in size during the first year and is incapable of eating solid foods for at least the first four months of that time.

Adults aren't supposed to triple in size in the space of a year and have different dietary requirements....

I think this is grasping. I doubt eother of us knows if there is any significant difference between the ability of a baby or adult to digest or handle high sugar diets. I think its reasonable to assume that adults too can handle high sugar diets from the simple fact that a lot of adults do handle high sugar diets just fine.

Shrimply

antrobus wrote: »

No, Malthusian is right. You are peddling pseudoscientific nonsense, and don't understand how evolution works. How evolution works is quite straightforward. It's a question of mathematics.

For example; foxes chase and eat rabbits. A rabbit in possession of a genetic mutation that enables it to run a bit faster will have a better chance of escaping the fox, surviving, and thus being able to procreate. The slower rabbit gets caught and eaten. Even a very tiny little mutation that enables a rabbit to run just the teensiest bit 1% faster than its companions will be sufficient, over a 100 or so generations, to mean that the mutation will dominate the rabbit gene pool. Thus rabbits will evolve to run faster. (And so will the foxes.)

Evolution is descent with modification.

P.S. A single person has a mutated gene to cope. All evolution starts with individuals.

I have to laugh. It's not pseudoscience and I'm pretty sure I'm more qualified to talk about evolution and adaptation than you are.

Yes if you rely on new mutations evolution will take a long time to occur. However, you are overlooking the key point that selection mainly happens on genetic variation that is already present. We already have a whole load of genetic diversity (a lot of these may of originally been neutral mutations) that have accumulated over these huge time scales you think are so important.

The changes seen in average human height over the last century or so is a prime example. We haven't mutated to be large, the genetic variation for taller people has just been selected for.

In your, very over simplistic fox, example, imagine if we killed off, in a single generation, the 50% slowest rabbits. The next generation would, on average, be considerably faster. Providing that the differences in speed are genetic and heritable.

Generali

cells wrote: »

I think this is grasping. I doubt eother of us knows if there is any significant difference between the ability of a baby or adult to digest or handle high sugar diets. I think its reasonable to assume that adults too can handle high sugar diets from the simple fact that a lot of adults do handle high sugar diets just fine.

Isn't the point of the Sugar Tax that actually they don't??

cells

Generali wrote: »

Isn't the point of the Sugar Tax that actually they don't??

Legislation decides what the human body can and can not digest in a healthy way?