My family could have probably be considered to be poor but they managed to get by without eating tons of crap.
These food companies should take some responsibility for the goods they produce. Cigarettes have been targeted to improve people's health, about time the Government moved onto the next culprit for the never ending burden on our health service.
I don't think the government has the balls to take on the food industry though.
Sugary foods and drinks are very useful to athletes. Running long races like Half marathons, marathons etc. You'll be surprised at how much the body needs to take in unrefined sugar, such as chocolate bars, hard gums. I ran a half marathon and minutes after finishing I ate 5 Mars bars and downed almost a litre of Iron Bru!
The body needs this sugar to fuel starved muscles etc and build up the low blood sugar levels.
A lot of people don't realise fruit has sugar in, they assume swapping a kit kat for a apple means they aren't consuming sugar
I've seen loads of people say they are cutting out sugar then they say they are eating fruit or advising someone to swap chocolate for fruit, some people don't have a clue!
Education would do a better job than taxing food/drink more
To be fair, swapping a chocolate bar for an apple is a very positive swap, calories and nutrients wise.
Fruit does have sugar, yes, but natural sugars are far better than processed ones.
I think going cold turkey on all sugar if you're someone who previously ate a lot of processed food is a very bad idea and very likely to fail.
Sugary foods and drinks are very useful to athletes. Running long races like Half marathons, marathons etc. You'll be surprised at how much the body needs to take in unrefined sugar, such as chocolate bars, hard gums. I ran a half marathon and minutes after finishing I ate 5 Mars bars and downed almost a litre of Iron Bru!
The body needs this sugar to fuel starved muscles etc and build up the low blood sugar levels.
Come on, I know you were into your bbing for a few years, so I'm sure you know not all sugars are the same and that different sugars will have different glycemic indexes and loads.
A lot of people don't realise fruit has sugar in, they assume swapping a kit kat for a apple means they aren't consuming sugar
I've seen loads of people say they are cutting out sugar then they say they are eating fruit or advising someone to swap chocolate for fruit, some people don't have a clue!
Education would do a better job than taxing food/drink more
Education yes, clear labelling yes, but for example as you say swapping a Kit Kat for an apple , that can only be good, the natural sugar in an apple is far less harmful to a person than the processed sugars added to confectionary.
For instance in a 4 finger Kit Kat you have 23.8g of sugar that's about 6 teaspoons of sugar much more if you get one of the flavoured Kit Kats in an apple there are depending on the size about 2 teaspoons of natural sugars . Fruit does not tend to cause insulin spikes like the processed sugars do and is full of other good things, and whilst appples and pears are higher in natural sugars there are many other fruits that are lower.
It's personal choice what people eat, it's possible to eat either and lose weight
Yes you can eat what you want , the problem is many people are not losing weight , cases of type 2 diabetes caused by diet are rising like hell and mainly because people do not realise what is in what they are eating. Also whilst you could live on burger , chips and chocolate and as long as you do not go over your daily calorie limit and exercise maintain weight or even lose it that diet is very unhealthy as you are not getting the goodness you need from fresh foods and fruits etc
As I said earlier I don't think taxing it will make any difference, people will still buy things, I do think the way to go is to move toward limits on how much sugar can be added to items , there is no need for it especially when the are natural alternatives if something does need to be sweetened , such as Stevia, mind you Coke Life that they advertise as being lower sugar with Stevia still has loads of sugar in it.
However I do think labelling has to improve and be more clear, labels should tell the truth more clearly, for instance I just bought some Pressed Apple Juice in M&S , now if it was from concentrate you would expect it to be sugar laden but this was pressed which you would expect to be healthier , I didn't have my glasses on so could not really read the label as the print is so sodding small but when I got back to the office I saw that on a 330ml bottle , which is one you would drink in one go they split the ingredients into 100ml servings and there are 11g of sugar per 100ml. Now that is nearly 3 teaspoons , so in a 330ml bottle of pressed juice they have added just over 9 teaspoons of sugar. I think as I say labels should be clearer and maybe on the front actually put in numbers how many teaspoons of sugar are in a bottle or pack, inform and educate people , the amount of people who will aim for a low fat version of something without realising it is packed with sugar is unbelievable.
Why?
Fruit juice from concentrate is juice which has been concentrated and returned to its original state by the addition of water. Volatile flavours lost during the concentration process can be added back, as can pulp or cells, but it can't have sugar added and be called "Juice From Concentrate".
Sugar can be added to "juice" or "juice from concentrate" if it happens to be a particularly acidic fruit, but the levels are restricted and the main description on the pack then has to be "Sweetened Juice" or "Juice With Added Sugar".
It's personal choice what people eat, it's possible to eat either and lose weight
It is, yes, but the idea that they are an equally bad (or good) choice is just plain incorrect!
Of course it's personal choice what people eat, but unfortunately (and disclaimer: this is not my own personal attitude) as the obesity problem in this country continues to squeeze an already over-stretched NHS, overweight and obese people are going to find their eating habits under more and more scrutiny, and there'll be more and more suggestions of sugar taxes and similar.
Personally I believe we need more education and more support for those who struggle with their weight, as from what I have seen it is an emotional and mental issue for many people. For others, it's lack of food education or cooking ability.
It is, yes, but the idea that they are an equally bad (or good) choice is just plain incorrect!
Of course it's personal choice what people eat, but unfortunately (and disclaimer: this is not my own personal attitude) as the obesity problem in this country continues to squeeze an already over-stretched NHS, overweight and obese people are going to find their eating habits under more and more scrutiny, and there'll be more and more suggestions of sugar taxes and similar.
Personally I believe we need more education and more support for those who struggle with their weight, as from what I have seen it is an emotional and mental issue for many people. For others, it's lack of food education or cooking ability.
The cost of junk food is a red herring, IMO.
I agree there should be more education and more support for those who want to lose weight
BIB I don't think it's simple as that, some people just like the food they eat
I could see people adding sugar to drink if the sugar is reduced in the product
Probably not, if it's done gradually. People will just become used to it. This is what has happened with salt in processed foods . How many people even noticed?
Probably not, if it's done gradually. People will just become used to it. This is what has happened with salt in processed foods . How many people even noticed?
lets be fair its our whole culture: -Fish+chips
-Boozing
-Eating out places,(restaurants) packed with fat rich food to lure your appetite.
-Convenience stores packed side to side with chocolate bars
-All you can eat places
-Our enjoyment of the use of the car.
Not to mention stuff like yogurts and cereals packed with 20g sugar. They can be staple foods for many families.
People had the same choices 50 years ago and yet obesity wasn't an issue back then. It is far too convenient to "blame" such things for the obestity crisis we now have. In fact in the past we used to drink more alcohol and eat more fish and chips.
The problem is that where governments have introduced taxes on high sugar drinks, Mexico is one example, it hasn't worked. Sales initially fall and then rise to previous levels.
It is also far too simplistic to label food as "good" or "junk" and drinks as "healthy" or unhealthy". It is food and drink. There is nothing wrong with having a can of pop, a burger, a ready meal. The problem is whether those foods are consumed as part of a balanced diet. Most people who are obese are obese because very often they don't have a healthy, balanced, diet combined with a lack of exercise. The only way to tackle this crisis is through education and changing peoples attitudes to the way they eat. Simply taxing a specific food or drink group would achieve nothing.
They've trialed food labels having information about how much exercise needed to be done to burn off the product (amongst other things) and found it has far more of an impact on choice that amount of sugar, fat etc.
I can see why that would work. I think a lot of people think that because they went for a 30 minute jog, they can then eat a whole pizza because they've 'earned' it. Well no actually, you've barely 'earned' one slice. I think people vastly underestimate how much exercise is actually needed to burn off the extra calories.
Yes you can eat what you want , the problem is many people are not losing weight , cases of type 2 diabetes caused by diet are rising like hell and mainly because people do not realise what is in what they are eating. Also whilst you could live on burger , chips and chocolate and as long as you do not go over your daily calorie limit and exercise maintain weight or even lose it that diet is very unhealthy as you are not getting the goodness you need from fresh foods and fruits etc
If they tax sugar things then people will just end up consuming more calories, fat has more calories to sugar, make low fat things higher price people will buy the high fat therefore consuming more calories
Comments
My family could have probably be considered to be poor but they managed to get by without eating tons of crap.
These food companies should take some responsibility for the goods they produce. Cigarettes have been targeted to improve people's health, about time the Government moved onto the next culprit for the never ending burden on our health service.
I don't think the government has the balls to take on the food industry though.
Sugary foods and drinks are very useful to athletes. Running long races like Half marathons, marathons etc. You'll be surprised at how much the body needs to take in unrefined sugar, such as chocolate bars, hard gums. I ran a half marathon and minutes after finishing I ate 5 Mars bars and downed almost a litre of Iron Bru!
The body needs this sugar to fuel starved muscles etc and build up the low blood sugar levels.
So sugary foods and drinks do have a purpose.
To be fair, swapping a chocolate bar for an apple is a very positive swap, calories and nutrients wise.
Fruit does have sugar, yes, but natural sugars are far better than processed ones.
I think going cold turkey on all sugar if you're someone who previously ate a lot of processed food is a very bad idea and very likely to fail.
I agree.
Sugar is sugar
Not quite.
Fructose (sugar from fruit) is broken down by your liver and does not disturb insulin levels.
Processed sugar requires the body to release insulin in the bloodstream to be broken down completely.
The latter slows down your digestion, essentially causing your body to have more time to store the glucose as fat.
Not to mention - an apple contains 10g of sugar. A Kit Kat contains 49g.
Plus the apple has vitamins and fibre, which the Kit Kat doesn't, and is far less calories (around 50 calories vs around 200 calories).
If I wanted to lose weight, I know which I'd choose.
Come on, I know you were into your bbing for a few years, so I'm sure you know not all sugars are the same and that different sugars will have different glycemic indexes and loads.
Kit kat 2 finger
107 calories
10.8g sugar
Well I don't know where google got 49g of sugar from!
Edited: looks like it was per 100g, my mistake!
However - it's still double the calories of an apple and the type of sugar that's going to cause your body more issues.
Not to mention none of the fibre or other nutritional value that will do your body and digestion good.
The Kit Kat is just empty calories. I'm not the biggest fan of fruit but anyone can see it's the better choice if someone is looking to lose weight.
I hate that term empty calories lol
It's personal choice what people eat, it's possible to eat either and lose weight
Education yes, clear labelling yes, but for example as you say swapping a Kit Kat for an apple , that can only be good, the natural sugar in an apple is far less harmful to a person than the processed sugars added to confectionary.
For instance in a 4 finger Kit Kat you have 23.8g of sugar that's about 6 teaspoons of sugar much more if you get one of the flavoured Kit Kats in an apple there are depending on the size about 2 teaspoons of natural sugars . Fruit does not tend to cause insulin spikes like the processed sugars do and is full of other good things, and whilst appples and pears are higher in natural sugars there are many other fruits that are lower.
Yes you can eat what you want , the problem is many people are not losing weight , cases of type 2 diabetes caused by diet are rising like hell and mainly because people do not realise what is in what they are eating. Also whilst you could live on burger , chips and chocolate and as long as you do not go over your daily calorie limit and exercise maintain weight or even lose it that diet is very unhealthy as you are not getting the goodness you need from fresh foods and fruits etc
Why?
Fruit juice from concentrate is juice which has been concentrated and returned to its original state by the addition of water. Volatile flavours lost during the concentration process can be added back, as can pulp or cells, but it can't have sugar added and be called "Juice From Concentrate".
Sugar can be added to "juice" or "juice from concentrate" if it happens to be a particularly acidic fruit, but the levels are restricted and the main description on the pack then has to be "Sweetened Juice" or "Juice With Added Sugar".
It is, yes, but the idea that they are an equally bad (or good) choice is just plain incorrect!
Of course it's personal choice what people eat, but unfortunately (and disclaimer: this is not my own personal attitude) as the obesity problem in this country continues to squeeze an already over-stretched NHS, overweight and obese people are going to find their eating habits under more and more scrutiny, and there'll be more and more suggestions of sugar taxes and similar.
Personally I believe we need more education and more support for those who struggle with their weight, as from what I have seen it is an emotional and mental issue for many people. For others, it's lack of food education or cooking ability.
The cost of junk food is a red herring, IMO.
I agree there should be more education and more support for those who want to lose weight
BIB I don't think it's simple as that, some people just like the food they eat
Probably not, if it's done gradually. People will just become used to it. This is what has happened with salt in processed foods . How many people even noticed?
I add salt to Pot Noodles.
People had the same choices 50 years ago and yet obesity wasn't an issue back then. It is far too convenient to "blame" such things for the obestity crisis we now have. In fact in the past we used to drink more alcohol and eat more fish and chips.
The problem is that where governments have introduced taxes on high sugar drinks, Mexico is one example, it hasn't worked. Sales initially fall and then rise to previous levels.
It is also far too simplistic to label food as "good" or "junk" and drinks as "healthy" or unhealthy". It is food and drink. There is nothing wrong with having a can of pop, a burger, a ready meal. The problem is whether those foods are consumed as part of a balanced diet. Most people who are obese are obese because very often they don't have a healthy, balanced, diet combined with a lack of exercise. The only way to tackle this crisis is through education and changing peoples attitudes to the way they eat. Simply taxing a specific food or drink group would achieve nothing.
A point that seems to be overlooked by many!
If I've been out on a wet, cold day, when I come back I want a cup of tea and a biscuit (or two), not some boring apple!
And who wants to sit down in front of the telly with a nice salad with fat-free dressing, when you can have a chip butty dripping with tomato ketchup?
Fattening food is just scrummier than non-fattening, and there it is.
Exactly!
I'd rather be happy eating what I want than be miserable eating healthy
I can see why that would work. I think a lot of people think that because they went for a 30 minute jog, they can then eat a whole pizza because they've 'earned' it. Well no actually, you've barely 'earned' one slice. I think people vastly underestimate how much exercise is actually needed to burn off the extra calories.
Maybe because they don't want to?
I had Sugar to sugar free squash otherwise it's disgusting
Same here
There is no law saying you got to lose weight, not yet anyways.