The anti-sugar thing is now mainstream (check Twitter for #sugarrush).
Replies
-
UltimateRBF wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »Deoxyribonucleic acid. I mean, acid. That sounds scary. And who can pronounce deoxyribonucleic? Don't trust it if you can't pronounce it. Big words bad.
YIKES!!!! That sounds super scary. I hope I don't have any of that inside me!!
I know! Apparently scientists have known about this acid since the 1950s! How long have we been walking around with this inside us?!nutmegoreo wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »Deoxyribonucleic acid. I mean, acid. That sounds scary. And who can pronounce deoxyribonucleic? Don't trust it if you can't pronounce it. Big words bad.
It starts with deoxy. Does that mean it destroys oxygen? That sounds bad. Can I detox myself from it with the diet water?
It's the only way!
Blame Watson and Crick for inventing it.
0 -
Eggs were bad, now they are good. I always ate eggs and butter and I will keep eating sugar, a quarter of a hershey bar at a time. Balance!0
-
seeingthelight wrote: »Eggs were bad, now they are good. I always ate eggs and butter and I will keep eating sugar, a quarter of a hershey bar at a time. Balance!
It takes a while for science to catch up.
0 -
0
-
Jamie Oliver is on the sugar bashing bandwagon. He's lost a load of weight and the media has leached onto the fact he was eating seaweed and that was the main reason (he was burnt out surviving on 3hrs sleep, I think sorting out his lifestyle was the main reason his eating habits improved). He's got a new cookbook out with skinny food and superfood recipes. Plus a TV programme about the evils of sugar and how we should tax sugary drinks. I think it's just as much for his financial benefit and for his public image as it was to educate but I was surprised how many people were shocked on Twitter at the amount of added sugar in foods.0
-
. I think it's just as much for his financial benefit and for his public image as it was to educate but I was surprised how many people were shocked on Twitter at the amount of added sugar in foods.
Numeracy and literacy are obviously bigger problems than we thought. It's on the freaking label in plain view.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »darrensurrey wrote: »Does it make you wonder if it isn't just a fad?
Nevermind, I shouldn't ask that here. LOL
I hear ya.
Thing is, Jamie Oliver is blaming sugar for the obesity crisis as opposed to people just eating too much.
I can't be bothered to get into a Twitter argument but it's ripe for the taking as everyone is now thinking Jamie Oliver is a god, with some idiots saying he should be PM.
Nope the obesity crises was caused by that mum pushing fast food through the school railing several years ago when they tried to improve the standard of food in schools.
No. Obesity is caused by eating too much.0 -
Jamie Oliver is on the sugar bashing bandwagon. He's lost a load of weight and the media has leached onto the fact he was eating seaweed and that was the main reason (he was burnt out surviving on 3hrs sleep, I think sorting out his lifestyle was the main reason his eating habits improved). He's got a new cookbook out with skinny food and superfood recipes. Plus a TV programme about the evils of sugar and how we should tax sugary drinks. I think it's just as much for his financial benefit and for his public image as it was to educate but I was surprised how many people were shocked on Twitter at the amount of added sugar in foods.
Aha! I knew there must have been a new product out or something.0 -
To create a new fad you need to do one or more of the following:
1. Create a problem that doesn't exists, or overstate a minor problem, then propose a solution for it.
2. Criticize the latest fad (or legitimate diet) and propose the exact opposite approach but with a different spin on calorie restriction with sciency-sounding words.
3. Take a random, cheap to produce, but not globally well-known product, create magical claims for it, call it a superfood and sell it.
4. Take an obscure study on an obscure product and inflate the findings to make it commercially viable.
5. Take any good old diet perceived as healthy by the public, create a romanticized story and rituals for it, cherry pick research to make it sound legitimate, build a cult around it, profit.
6. Take something people are already bashing/praising, but put a new spin on it, bashing/praising it in more creative ways to leech on the popularity better than others.0 -
Jamie let himself go a bit of late
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »To create a new fad you need to do one or more of the following:
1. Create a problem that doesn't exists, or overstate a minor problem, then propose a solution for it.
2. Criticize the latest fad (or legitimate diet) and propose the exact opposite approach but with a different spin on calorie restriction with sciency-sounding words.
3. Take a random, cheap to produce, but not globally well-known product, create magical claims for it, call it a superfood and sell it.
4. Take an obscure study on an obscure product and inflate the findings to make it commercially viable.
5. Take any good old diet perceived as healthy by the public, create a romanticized story and rituals for it, cherry pick research to make it sound legitimate, build a cult around it, profit.
6. Take something people are already bashing/praising, but put a new spin on it, bashing/praising it in more creative ways to leech on the popularity better than others.
*prints it out and sticks it on his office wall*
You're invited to the opening party for my new island when I've bought it.
0 -
I watched the show on catchup. I think a sugar tax might make people switch to diet versions, but I don't think it will make people give up soda. There will be left-wing political types saying it will hit the poor disproportionately, but it has to be said that the upper classes are mostly not necking litres of the stuff and stuffing burgers all day long.
That sugar is bad isn't controversial surely ?0 -
Collobrieres wrote: »I watched the show on catchup. I think a sugar tax might make people switch to diet versions, but I don't think it will make people give up soda. There will be left-wing political types saying it will hit the poor disproportionately, but it has to be said that the upper classes are mostly not necking litres of the stuff and stuffing burgers all day long.
That sugar is bad isn't controversial surely ?
Sugar isn't bad. Too much sugar is. Just like too much protein, too much fat, too much vitamin A, etc.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Collobrieres wrote: »I watched the show on catchup. I think a sugar tax might make people switch to diet versions, but I don't think it will make people give up soda. There will be left-wing political types saying it will hit the poor disproportionately, but it has to be said that the upper classes are mostly not necking litres of the stuff and stuffing burgers all day long.
That sugar is bad isn't controversial surely ?
Sugar isn't bad. Too much sugar is. Just like too much protein, too much fat, too much vitamin A, etc.
But for most people (who overeat) it's a lot easier to have too much sugar than too much protein
0 -
Collobrieres wrote: »I watched the show on catchup. I think a sugar tax might make people switch to diet versions, but I don't think it will make people give up soda.
Depends on which "people". In some large population groups in the UK the median consumption is zero. Perhaps returning fizzy drinks to their role as an occasional treat for kids is the solution, for the SSB-specific health issues that Jamie was getting excited about.
0 -
Collobrieres wrote: »I watched the show on catchup. I think a sugar tax might make people switch to diet versions, but I don't think it will make people give up soda.
Depends on which "people". In some large population groups in the UK the median consumption is zero. Perhaps returning fizzy drinks to their role as an occasional treat for kids is the solution, for the SSB-specific health issues that Jamie was getting excited about.
How do you propose we do that? Where do we get the money from to do that?
I am 100% for a sugary drink tax not because SUGAR IS EVIL but because 1) it will help reduce consumption 2) it will raise money for health education and 3) raise money for the NHS.0 -
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »How do you propose we do that? Where do we get the money from to do that?
I am 100% for a sugary drink tax not because SUGAR IS EVIL but because 1) it will help reduce consumption 2) it will raise money for health education and 3) raise money for the NHS.
Edukashon perhaps ? Role models ? Satire ?
Take the VAT off diet drinks if you want to create an incentive, the bottomless pit that is the NHS will get any savings that may result. Diet drinks are cheaper to make already so have a higher profit margin, should be in company's interests to promote them.0 -
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »Collobrieres wrote: »I watched the show on catchup. I think a sugar tax might make people switch to diet versions, but I don't think it will make people give up soda.
Depends on which "people". In some large population groups in the UK the median consumption is zero. Perhaps returning fizzy drinks to their role as an occasional treat for kids is the solution, for the SSB-specific health issues that Jamie was getting excited about.
How do you propose we do that? Where do we get the money from to do that?
I am 100% for a sugary drink tax not because SUGAR IS EVIL but because 1) it will help reduce consumption 2) it will raise money for health education and 3) raise money for the NHS.
Maybe any increase on 'perceived' added sugar products should be offset by a subsidization on the price of fresh fruit and veg (I know that's not practical and will never happen, but it would be nice).
Fruit is so expensive in the UK.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Collobrieres wrote: »I watched the show on catchup. I think a sugar tax might make people switch to diet versions, but I don't think it will make people give up soda. There will be left-wing political types saying it will hit the poor disproportionately, but it has to be said that the upper classes are mostly not necking litres of the stuff and stuffing burgers all day long.
That sugar is bad isn't controversial surely ?
Sugar isn't bad. Too much sugar is. Just like too much protein, too much fat, too much vitamin A, etc.
But for most people (who overeat) it's a lot easier to have too much sugar than too much protein
Sure, mostly because apart from eating potein powder out of the jar, there's no foods that are low volume and very high in protein. And most sugar guidelines are very low where protein is something like "don't eat over 200-300 grams per day, that ain't good for you." Though for different reasons obviously.0 -
thankyou4thevenom wrote: »How do you propose we do that? Where do we get the money from to do that?
I am 100% for a sugary drink tax not because SUGAR IS EVIL but because 1) it will help reduce consumption 2) it will raise money for health education and 3) raise money for the NHS.
Edukashon perhaps ? Role models ? Satire ?
Take the VAT off diet drinks if you want to create an incentive, the bottomless pit that is the NHS will get any savings that may result. Diet drinks are cheaper to make already so have a higher profit margin, should be in company's interests to promote them.
Ahhh yes. Let's take money way from the Treasury because the NHS has so much to spare, our education is so good for every single child that not one is left behind and drinks companies will when given a tax cut immedalety lower prices and push the product people by less off.
Total sense made. You've converted me.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »To create a new fad you need to do one or more of the following:
1. Create a problem that doesn't exists, or overstate a minor problem, then propose a solution for it.
2. Criticize the latest fad (or legitimate diet) and propose the exact opposite approach but with a different spin on calorie restriction with sciency-sounding words.
3. Take a random, cheap to produce, but not globally well-known product, create magical claims for it, call it a superfood and sell it.
4. Take an obscure study on an obscure product and inflate the findings to make it commercially viable.
5. Take any good old diet perceived as healthy by the public, create a romanticized story and rituals for it, cherry pick research to make it sound legitimate, build a cult around it, profit.
6. Take something people are already bashing/praising, but put a new spin on it, bashing/praising it in more creative ways to leech on the popularity better than others.
Ancel Keys did a great job using those guidelines. LOL0 -
stevencloser wrote: »n
Sure, mostly because apart from eating potein powder out of the jar, there's no foods that are low volume and very high in protein. And most sugar guidelines are very low where protein is something like "don't eat over 200-300 grams per day, that ain't good for you." Though for different reasons obviously.
Is jerky not common in the UK?0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »To create a new fad you need to do one or more of the following:
1. Create a problem that doesn't exists, or overstate a minor problem, then propose a solution for it.
2. Criticize the latest fad (or legitimate diet) and propose the exact opposite approach but with a different spin on calorie restriction with sciency-sounding words.
3. Take a random, cheap to produce, but not globally well-known product, create magical claims for it, call it a superfood and sell it.
4. Take an obscure study on an obscure product and inflate the findings to make it commercially viable.
5. Take any good old diet perceived as healthy by the public, create a romanticized story and rituals for it, cherry pick research to make it sound legitimate, build a cult around it, profit.
6. Take something people are already bashing/praising, but put a new spin on it, bashing/praising it in more creative ways to leech on the popularity better than others.
Ancel Keys did a great job using those guidelines. LOL
Incredible job, he drove most of the world off the nutritional cliff. Yea Keys!
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »n
Sure, mostly because apart from eating potein powder out of the jar, there's no foods that are low volume and very high in protein. And most sugar guidelines are very low where protein is something like "don't eat over 200-300 grams per day, that ain't good for you." Though for different reasons obviously.
Is jerky not common in the UK?
it isn't hard to find - in either American or South African styles. I wouldn't say it was a mainstream snack / food item.0 -
Perhaps returning fizzy drinks to their role as an occasional treat for kids is the solution, for the SSB-specific health issues that Jamie was getting excited about.
This is my view.
But it requires a cultural change, which is pretty hard. When I grew up (I'm 45), that's how things were, even in the US.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
oyChihuahua wrote: »See upcoming documentary with Katie Couric - Veg'ed Up: How whole foods are making us fat.
:successkid:0 -
WRT taxes and reducing use, taxes do not discourage use. CF binge drinking culture in the UK and ongoing tobacco use especially with children and young adults.0
-
I don't want a tax on my Mars icecream bars, I pay enough tax!0
LOL 
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 440 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions