Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should junk food be taxed?
Replies
-
svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
Note that this article -- which is not a great source -- lacks numbers. It's saying that one particular meal supposedly has high sugar, which I'm sure is true, but some also have high fat or low veg, so why not talk about that? Given -- again -- that ALL savory foods account for only 5% of added sugars, this seems a ridiculous thing to focus on. I am (again) certain it's because people like the idea that they didn't overeat due to any agency, but were somehow tricked or not responsible for it.
Smith gives no evidence here that consuming sugar in a savory food leads to cravings or overeating. He's basically just speculating. I think if you apply logic, blaming the 5% of added sugar in savory things for people eating the other 95% of added sugar (in foods that most find delicious and would enjoy whatever else they ate) is rather odd and backwards.
Again I point you to Johnsons study and what believe doesn't reiterate my point of feeling full. In the following paragraph it says;
The mechanism was related to the inability of fructose to acutely stimulate insulin and leptin and to inhibit ghrelin, all factors that are known to affect the satiety center in the central nervous system. Yudkin (34) also argued that the sweetness of fructose (or sucrose) often makes food more palatable, and, indeed, the food industry has capitalized on this by frequently adding HFCS or sugar to normally nonsweetened foods (such as crackers) to enhance the taste. This may stimulate more food intake.
Since sugar has that affect on satiety, the consumption of foods with very little nutritional value but with that common "hidden sugar" buzzword, many people overeat without actually realising they're doing so.
You keep using generalizations like 'many'... until you or anybody else can quantify the effect, there is no proof of any impact in the paper or in your conclusions from the paper.
And for the record - there are many people who are capable of regulating their sugar intake and for whom sugar is not a problem (I would argue there are far more who can than who think they cannot). You want us to believe that sugar is a demon that makes us consume more and more and more, as if we have no control over what we consume and THAT is the point that everyone is arguing against - it ALWAYS boils down to personal responsibility and WE alone are responsible for what we consume! As long as you try and blame sugar (and by association the food companies that 'hide' the sugar), you are removing the responsibility for our own actions and that will never fly around here.2 -
svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
You really need to post some examples of what these ready meals are that contain so much sugar. I know you're in the UK and I'm in the US, but we need some specifics of the types of foods you are referring to, ideally with the brand name and/or picture of the label so we understand it. I eat a decent number of frozen meals for lunch, use convenience foods to help get dinner on the table, and I'm rarely over my sugar goal on a daily basis.
Link wit example was posted.
I do see that now and am looking at it, I actually just came back to edit my post asking for the examples.
The first grouping are almost all ketchup and/or other tomato based condiments. Tomatoes have a good deal of naturally occurring sugars, which I'm sure was not taken into consideration in this article...
And of the 7 entrees that are were chosen, 5 of them are some combination of 'sweet and sour' and another is MANGO chicken (mangoes are very high in sugar to begin with)... talk about slanted writing and cherry-picking your examples...
Doesn't debunk the idea that they are ready meals with sugar easily accessible to consumers though does it?
No, it doesn't - however, on a general basis, how many people eat these meals exclusively? Just because the meals are available does not mean that they are consumed in a great enough quantity to have any contributory affect on the obesity of the general population.
https://www.goodhousekeeping.co.uk/institute/food-reviews/brits-buying-over-3-million-ready-meals-each-day
Based on this article and many others like it, alot.2 -
svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
You really need to post some examples of what these ready meals are that contain so much sugar. I know you're in the UK and I'm in the US, but we need some specifics of the types of foods you are referring to, ideally with the brand name and/or picture of the label so we understand it. I eat a decent number of frozen meals for lunch, use convenience foods to help get dinner on the table, and I'm rarely over my sugar goal on a daily basis.
Link wit example was posted.
I do see that now and am looking at it, I actually just came back to edit my post asking for the examples.
The first grouping are almost all ketchup and/or other tomato based condiments. Tomatoes have a good deal of naturally occurring sugars, which I'm sure was not taken into consideration in this article...
And of the 7 entrees that are were chosen, 5 of them are some combination of 'sweet and sour' and another is MANGO chicken (mangoes are very high in sugar to begin with)... talk about slanted writing and cherry-picking your examples...
Doesn't debunk the idea that they are ready meals with sugar easily accessible to consumers though does it?
Again, so what? Have you ever made sweet and sour chicken at home from scratch? What's the sugar content in that?
There are also plenty of ready meals available that have sugar content less than 10 g.
I'm really not sure what this has to do with the thread topic of whether junk food should be taxed. Do you consider ready meals like these:
http://www.smartmademeals.com/
http://www.healthychoice.com/cafe-steamers
https://www.evolfoods.com/our-food
To be junk food which should have additional taxes applied? If so, I'd really like to understand what makes these, or any ready made meal, junk food.2 -
senseandsensibility wrote: »Taxes on sodas, etc. in the U.S. have resulted in huge decreases in the sales of soda in those cities (Philadelphia, as an example, has seen a drop of up to 50% in sales, depending on neighborhood and market).
Not at all clear.
Philadelphia is rather too soon to say, but can you give me the source for those numbers and show that actual consumption has decreased (rather than people buying them in the 'burbs or NJ), and that it's not tracked by the decline in overall sales that is countrywide?
When IL removed sales of soda from schools (which I support), the evidence was that kids just bought soda elsewhere.2 -
svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
You really need to post some examples of what these ready meals are that contain so much sugar. I know you're in the UK and I'm in the US, but we need some specifics of the types of foods you are referring to, ideally with the brand name and/or picture of the label so we understand it. I eat a decent number of frozen meals for lunch, use convenience foods to help get dinner on the table, and I'm rarely over my sugar goal on a daily basis.
Link wit example was posted.
I do see that now and am looking at it, I actually just came back to edit my post asking for the examples.
The first grouping are almost all ketchup and/or other tomato based condiments. Tomatoes have a good deal of naturally occurring sugars, which I'm sure was not taken into consideration in this article...
And of the 7 entrees that are were chosen, 5 of them are some combination of 'sweet and sour' and another is MANGO chicken (mangoes are very high in sugar to begin with)... talk about slanted writing and cherry-picking your examples...
Doesn't debunk the idea that they are ready meals with sugar easily accessible to consumers though does it?
No, it doesn't - however, on a general basis, how many people eat these meals exclusively? Just because the meals are available does not mean that they are consumed in a great enough quantity to have any contributory affect on the obesity of the general population.
https://www.goodhousekeeping.co.uk/institute/food-reviews/brits-buying-over-3-million-ready-meals-each-day
Based on this article and many others like it, alot.
Not really. The current estimated population of Great Britain is 66 million people. Assuming that people eat on average 2 meals a day, that means that of the 122 million meals consumed daily, with only 3 million of them being the 'ready made' meals, that computes to less than 2.5% of the meals being the ready made meals.4 -
svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
You really need to post some examples of what these ready meals are that contain so much sugar. I know you're in the UK and I'm in the US, but we need some specifics of the types of foods you are referring to, ideally with the brand name and/or picture of the label so we understand it. I eat a decent number of frozen meals for lunch, use convenience foods to help get dinner on the table, and I'm rarely over my sugar goal on a daily basis.
Link wit example was posted.
I do see that now and am looking at it, I actually just came back to edit my post asking for the examples.
The first grouping are almost all ketchup and/or other tomato based condiments. Tomatoes have a good deal of naturally occurring sugars, which I'm sure was not taken into consideration in this article...
And of the 7 entrees that are were chosen, 5 of them are some combination of 'sweet and sour' and another is MANGO chicken (mangoes are very high in sugar to begin with)... talk about slanted writing and cherry-picking your examples...
Doesn't debunk the idea that they are ready meals with sugar easily accessible to consumers though does it?
No, it doesn't - however, on a general basis, how many people eat these meals exclusively? Just because the meals are available does not mean that they are consumed in a great enough quantity to have any contributory affect on the obesity of the general population.
https://www.goodhousekeeping.co.uk/institute/food-reviews/brits-buying-over-3-million-ready-meals-each-day
Based on this article and many others like it, alot.
Not really. The current estimated population of Great Britain is 66 million people. Assuming that people eat on average 2 meals a day, that means that of the 122 million meals consumed daily, with only 3 million of them being the 'ready made' meals, that computes to less than 2.5% of the meals being the ready made meals.
Math is hard.
And even if you ignore children... and you should for this calculation, that moves the calculation to 88 million meals and 3.4%1 -
svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
Note that this article -- which is not a great source -- lacks numbers. It's saying that one particular meal supposedly has high sugar, which I'm sure is true, but some also have high fat or low veg, so why not talk about that? Given -- again -- that ALL savory foods account for only 5% of added sugars, this seems a ridiculous thing to focus on. I am (again) certain it's because people like the idea that they didn't overeat due to any agency, but were somehow tricked or not responsible for it.
Smith gives no evidence here that consuming sugar in a savory food leads to cravings or overeating. He's basically just speculating. I think if you apply logic, blaming the 5% of added sugar in savory things for people eating the other 95% of added sugar (in foods that most find delicious and would enjoy whatever else they ate) is rather odd and backwards.
Again I point you to Johnsons study and what believe doesn't reiterate my point of feeling full. In the following paragraph it says;
The mechanism was related to the inability of fructose to acutely stimulate insulin and leptin and to inhibit ghrelin, all factors that are known to affect the satiety center in the central nervous system. Yudkin (34) also argued that the sweetness of fructose (or sucrose) often makes food more palatable, and, indeed, the food industry has capitalized on this by frequently adding HFCS or sugar to normally nonsweetened foods (such as crackers) to enhance the taste. This may stimulate more food intake.
It's speculation. No evidence is presented.
Again, it's not logical to claim that the 5% of added sugars consumed in savory foods drives the remaining consumption of 95% of the overall added sugars. You may think it's logical to believe that people only eat cookies and ice cream and donuts because they had some tikka masala in a frozen meal for lunch, but I think that's absurd and nothing you have presented supports such a wild claim.Since sugar has that affect on satiety
The only study of this I've seen did not actually support this idea -- it tested the hypothesis and it failed. I'll have to dig it up.
More significantly, do you think this refers to having a little bit (or even 80 calories worth as part of an overall 650+ cal meal) of sugar (note: this is not all added sugar)? If so, I should be craving sugar like MAD -- I had a breakfast (smoothie consisting of protein powder, unsweetened coconut milk, avocado, kale, spinach, and strawberries) that contained about 19 g of sugar for only 340 calories. Most people would consider my breakfast rather healthful, though.
I think you are dug into this idea that "hidden sugars" play a role in obesity, but the fact is they are not hidden and there's no evidence that sugar in savory foods are important at all.
1 -
svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
You really need to post some examples of what these ready meals are that contain so much sugar. I know you're in the UK and I'm in the US, but we need some specifics of the types of foods you are referring to, ideally with the brand name and/or picture of the label so we understand it. I eat a decent number of frozen meals for lunch, use convenience foods to help get dinner on the table, and I'm rarely over my sugar goal on a daily basis.
Link wit example was posted.
I do see that now and am looking at it, I actually just came back to edit my post asking for the examples.
The first grouping are almost all ketchup and/or other tomato based condiments. Tomatoes have a good deal of naturally occurring sugars, which I'm sure was not taken into consideration in this article...
And of the 7 entrees that are were chosen, 5 of them are some combination of 'sweet and sour' and another is MANGO chicken (mangoes are very high in sugar to begin with)... talk about slanted writing and cherry-picking your examples...
Doesn't debunk the idea that they are ready meals with sugar easily accessible to consumers though does it?
No, it doesn't - however, on a general basis, how many people eat these meals exclusively? Just because the meals are available does not mean that they are consumed in a great enough quantity to have any contributory affect on the obesity of the general population.
https://www.goodhousekeeping.co.uk/institute/food-reviews/brits-buying-over-3-million-ready-meals-each-day
Based on this article and many others like it, alot.
Again, total percentage of ALL added sugar in the UK diet from savory foods: 5%.
Ready meals would be a small portion of that 5%.
This is absurd.
And calories from MANGOS are not from added sugar. So now if I have an apple with my lunch, that will make me fat?2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »senseandsensibility wrote: »Taxes on sodas, etc. in the U.S. have resulted in huge decreases in the sales of soda in those cities (Philadelphia, as an example, has seen a drop of up to 50% in sales, depending on neighborhood and market).
Not at all clear.
Philadelphia is rather too soon to say, but can you give me the source for those numbers and show that actual consumption has decreased (rather than people buying them in the 'burbs or NJ), and that it's not tracked by the decline in overall sales that is countrywide?
When IL removed sales of soda from schools (which I support), the evidence was that kids just bought soda elsewhere.
This is the typical response of any attempt to restrict/remove/abolish in the US.
A review of the data on tobacco use in the US - taxation had little impact on usage.
A quick analysis of PubMed random articles highlight the following primary reasons for decreased usage in the US:
1. People decreased/stopped in large to the coordinated information campaign highlighting the marketing strategies of tobacco companies.
2. People decreased/stopped from seeing the first-hand effects of overuse by friends and family.
3. Limited space to smoke.
4. The general negative perception of smoking. Societal impact.
What is interesting is that educating people on the dangers of smoking and the health risks involved has little to no impact, while educating people on the marketing strategies and tactics had a great impact.
Americans will gladly accept risks, but do not want to be manipulated.
Perhaps a similar education campaign on the food/diet industry would be equally effective?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »However, I am guessing that this study is the one referred to: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full.
If so, beats me why it could not be posted.
From the abstract: "Currently, we are experiencing an epidemic of cardiorenal disease characterized by increasing rates of obesity, hypertension, the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and kidney disease. Whereas excessive caloric intake and physical inactivity are likely important factors driving the obesity epidemic, it is important to consider additional mechanisms. We revisit an old hypothesis that sugar, particularly excessive fructose intake, has a critical role in the epidemic of cardiorenal disease...."
Before I go into this, curious if you are now backing off the claim that it's "hidden sugars" or ready meals (which we have no evidence to suggest are a significant contributor of sugar intake)?
My stance has not changed from my original argument about sugars - the whole point of a debate topic, is to debate. Hidden sugars would be what goes in a ready meal, as per my definition of the term hidden sugars aforementioned.
Again, sugars in savory foods (ALL savory foods) account for about 5% of total added sugars consumed in the UK.
Given that, what's the evidence that: (1) ready meals are relevant to the obesity problem in the UK and other countries; and (2) that ready meals are a significant source of sugar.
Excerpts from a BBC article;
But one area of concern is ready meals when people tend to eat an entire portion.
"Many other ready meals have far lower levels, but why do we have so much sugar in some "main courses"?
"Often we take sugar into our bodies but don't recognise it as sugar, mistaking it for more savoury tastes," says Barry Smith, founder of the University of London's Centre for the Study of the Senses.
Sugar acts as a balance to the bitterness or sourness of other flavours, such as salt or spices, which means the sweetness isn't tasted but still gives the body the effects of a "sugar rush", just as foods such as chocolate do. So some savoury foods are having the same effect on the body as sweet ones, and causing similar cravings, but with a different taste.
"The brain's saying 'Give me more like that'," says Smith. "It's getting lots of sugar without you actually knowing, so is less able than when eating sweets to say 'I've had enough. Stop now.' It's morally dubious that so much sugar is in things that people don't know or recognise from their tasting. We don't allow ourselves the freedom to choose. It's slightly surreptitious."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/magazine-36071678
This, tying into my idea of not feeling full from a meal and thus overeating based on sugar being within the meal providing empty calories. I would suggest based on this, such eating habits (in this case ready meals) are a factor on the obesity epidemic.
Note that this article -- which is not a great source -- lacks numbers. It's saying that one particular meal supposedly has high sugar, which I'm sure is true, but some also have high fat or low veg, so why not talk about that? Given -- again -- that ALL savory foods account for only 5% of added sugars, this seems a ridiculous thing to focus on. I am (again) certain it's because people like the idea that they didn't overeat due to any agency, but were somehow tricked or not responsible for it.
Smith gives no evidence here that consuming sugar in a savory food leads to cravings or overeating. He's basically just speculating. I think if you apply logic, blaming the 5% of added sugar in savory things for people eating the other 95% of added sugar (in foods that most find delicious and would enjoy whatever else they ate) is rather odd and backwards.
Again I point you to Johnsons study and what believe doesn't reiterate my point of feeling full. In the following paragraph it says;
The mechanism was related to the inability of fructose to acutely stimulate insulin and leptin and to inhibit ghrelin, all factors that are known to affect the satiety center in the central nervous system. Yudkin (34) also argued that the sweetness of fructose (or sucrose) often makes food more palatable, and, indeed, the food industry has capitalized on this by frequently adding HFCS or sugar to normally nonsweetened foods (such as crackers) to enhance the taste. This may stimulate more food intake.
It's speculation. No evidence is presented.
Again, it's not logical to claim that the 5% of added sugars consumed in savory foods drives the remaining consumption of 95% of the overall added sugars. You may think it's logical to believe that people only eat cookies and ice cream and donuts because they had some tikka masala in a frozen meal for lunch, but I think that's absurd and nothing you have presented supports such a wild claim.Since sugar has that affect on satiety
The only study of this I've seen did not actually support this idea -- it tested the hypothesis and it failed. I'll have to dig it up.
More significantly, do you think this refers to having a little bit (or even 80 calories worth as part of an overall 650+ cal meal) of sugar (note: this is not all added sugar)? If so, I should be craving sugar like MAD -- I had a breakfast (smoothie consisting of protein powder, unsweetened coconut milk, avocado, kale, spinach, and strawberries) that contained about 19 g of sugar for only 340 calories. Most people would consider my breakfast rather healthful, though.
I think you are dug into this idea that "hidden sugars" play a role in obesity, but the fact is they are not hidden and there's no evidence that sugar in savory foods are important at all.
Yes to all of this. I'm trying to understand what the actual point is that is being made here, since it all circles back to articles with clickbait titles based on cherry picking and fear mongering - and no actual response to the questions that are being posed to try to understand WHY someone believes that this is significant and if they have any direct experience with it themselves - eating a ready meal and then feeling like they need to over eat for example. I was told my n=1 doesn't count, but apparently an n=0 with speculation that it does impact others, does.
Also trying to understand if the suggestion is that a Tesco Tikka Masala ready meal is "junk food" that should be taxed in order to discourage consumption?2 -
Wow, this thread is the gift that keeps on giving
All this talk about added sugar, hidden sugar, HFCS, etc all should circle back to personal responsibility. The only way someone can eat too much sugar (or too much of anything) or can become more hungry from eating sugar and eat too much of other foods, is if they are not reading labels and not paying attention to their diet.
I know how much sugar I eat. I know when eating a particular food doesn't fill me up. I know when I eat more than I should have to. Because I have taken responsibility for my diet and my health. I eat enough processed food to give a clean-eater the vapors, but I get plenty of protein and fiber, and usually come in under the MFP default goal for sugar. I used to eat more sugar, and I have never been obese.
Taxing certain foods will not cause people to take responsibility for their diet. The majority of consumers want quick, convenient, tasty food they don't have to think about, so companies will do what they need to do to make that happen. Until people stop looking for the magical boogeyman ingredient that's making us fat, and start taking responsibility and eating less and moving more, nothing s going to change.5 -
I'm not understanding the "hidden sugar" issue. Is it somehow preventing people from realizing they're overweight and doing something about it??cwolfman13 wrote: »Note that sales of these vehicles went down significantly in the early 2000s when gas was double or more of what it is now and purchases of small cars rose.
Note sure how I really feel about taxing "junk food", but the argument that taxes don't change people purchasing and utilization habits doesn't fly.
No food is likely to receive a 100% tax, so the gas comparison is irrelevant. Besides, the average household income went down in the early 2000's, so maybe people bought smaller cars because they're cheaper to buy.senseandsensibility wrote: »Taxes on sodas, etc. in the U.S. have resulted in huge decreases in the sales of soda in those cities (Philadelphia, as an example, has seen a drop of up to 50% in sales, depending on neighborhood and market). And cigarette smoking in the U.S. has declined from 42%+ to a new low of 16.8%.
Philly's tax simply shifted soda sales to outside of Philly. Or they switched to juice, which has a similar calorie content. More on that here:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/philadelphia/philadelphia-soda-tax-sales-20170822.html
The drop in cigarette sales is far more complex than taxes, involving widespread public service campaigns, crackdowns on underage purchasing, increases of e-cigarettes, etc.
1 -
Perhaps this video can clear up much better what it is about sugar I am saying - it is roughly 90mins long but it's worth a watch.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM0 -
Your link doesn't work for me1
-
-
svetskisampion wrote: »
Actually just released under the UCTV umbrella - the person in the videos is the esteemed quack Dr Lustig... enough said...2 -
svetskisampion wrote: »Perhaps this video can clear up much better what it is about sugar I am saying - it is roughly 90mins long but it's worth a watch.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Why don't you just answer the questions people have asked you directly to clarify your position, instead of continuing to post links to fear mongering articles and videos created by other?
3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Perhaps this video can clear up much better what it is about sugar I am saying - it is roughly 90mins long but it's worth a watch.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Why don't you just answer the questions people have asked you directly to clarify your position, instead of continuing to post links to fear mongering articles and videos created by other?
I've answered every question posed to me, and in doing so people have responded with where I am getting such a line thought, including yourself. This has ranged from what tax has done to deter purchases in the uk, what ready meals contain sugar, where the term hidden sugar was coined and for what.
I get it - what doesn't suit your line of thinking is nonsense, and difficult to comprehend. End of discussion.2 -
No Dr lustig is nonsense. Getting sources is important.1
-
svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Perhaps this video can clear up much better what it is about sugar I am saying - it is roughly 90mins long but it's worth a watch.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Why don't you just answer the questions people have asked you directly to clarify your position, instead of continuing to post links to fear mongering articles and videos created by other?
I've answered every question posed to me, and in doing so people have responded with where I am getting such a line thought, including yourself. This has ranged from what tax has done to deter purchases in the uk, what ready meals contain sugar, where the term hidden sugar was coined and for what.
I get it - what doesn't suit your line of thinking is nonsense, and difficult to comprehend. End of discussion.
No, both @lemurcat12 and I have asked you questions like:
Do YOU think that the 5% of added sugars from savory foods that is reported to be consumed in the UK really contributes to people overeating in general?
You described a scenario where people were either eating a chocolate bar, or a ready meal. Do you think there are a lot of people who eat chocolates in place of dinner? And if they eat a ready meal and aren't satiated, do you think there are a lot who would go straight to sweets instead of, say, eating some cheese or nuts or a slice of peanut butter toast or hummus to help fill them up?
Do you think the examples shown in the articles and videos you've linked are logical and representative of actual behaviors and the choices available, or does it bother you at all that the examples used are all from things that would naturally be sweeter, things like sweet and sour chicken, mango chicken, etc. you don't think that's a bit of cherry picking going on?
I also asked, back to the original topic, do you think ready meals qualify as junk food and should have extra taxes in order to deter people from eating them?
2 -
svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Perhaps this video can clear up much better what it is about sugar I am saying - it is roughly 90mins long but it's worth a watch.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Why don't you just answer the questions people have asked you directly to clarify your position, instead of continuing to post links to fear mongering articles and videos created by other?
I've answered every question posed to me, and in doing so people have responded with where I am getting such a line thought, including yourself. This has ranged from what tax has done to deter purchases in the uk, what ready meals contain sugar, where the term hidden sugar was coined and for what.
I get it - what doesn't suit your line of thinking is nonsense, and difficult to comprehend. End of discussion.
No, you have not.
In addition to what Winogelato noted, above, I specifically asked you:lemurcat12 wrote: »To cut to the chase, however, I will see where we are actually disagreeing here, as I admit I'm confuse[d] as to the point you are trying to make:
I believe that a poor diet is a risk factor/tends to lead to poorer health (along with many other things) and that a good diet tends to lead to better health (all else equal) or at least helps with some risks, although with many others it is irrelevant.
I think that some added sugar (and a variety of foods naturally high in sugar, like dairy and fruit and arguably vegetables, depending on how we are defining this) is compatible with a good diet, but that excessive added sugar is not (that's what excessive means -- too much).
I think that a diet high in added sugar is one thing (not the only thing) that tends to lead to overconsumption of calories.
I think focusing on just sugar is wrong and odd, given especially that in many cases high sugar goes along with other sources of calories (like high fat) and that many other foods that are commonly overeaten lack sugar.
Where do we disagree?1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ent3rsandman wrote: »On top of that, junk food has helped many "hardgainers" that have the opposite problem. No need to take away their vice because our culture just happens to put hyperpalatable foods on a pedestal.
And how many hard gainers are there out there as opposed to people that are overweight or obese (the correct answer is very few)? For true hardgainers there are many calorie dense foods that are also nutritious.
Does it matter? That's like saying we don't need to worry about anorexia right now because a bigger margin of people can't put down their forks for more than 5 seconds. For the record though, there are quite a lot. Any bodybuilding/powerlifting forum is going to be full of them (i.e. not this one).
And not everyone wants to stuff themselves with almonds and olive oil to reach their calories. The hardgainers I know can barely stomach mass quantities of the food they LIKE. Please, let's be considerate of everyone.2 -
A 2lt bottle of Coke.....$0.99 with a 10% sugar tax $1.10......block of chocolate $2.50 with tax $2.75 I don't think it's going to make a difference!!! A kg of apples about 5-6 apples $5, a rock melon $4.90 each.....How about we have a fresh food subsidy? I can feed my kids on junk after school for under $5 and it would last a couple of days...But fresh fruit would cost me $10 a day easy!!!.....thats our problem!! Farmers are going broke cause they get paid next to nothing then massive markups by the time it gets to supermarket!!! And Massive companies making huge $$$ out of crap food that cost nothing to make and they can sell at tiny prices!!!1
-
summerkissed wrote: »A 2lt bottle of Coke.....$0.99 with a 10% sugar tax $1.10......block of chocolate $2.50 with tax $2.75 I don't think it's going to make a difference!!! A kg of apples about 5-6 apples $5, a rock melon $4.90 each.....How about we have a fresh food subsidy? I can feed my kids on junk after school for under $5 and it would last a couple of days...But fresh fruit would cost me $10 a day easy!!!.....thats our problem!! Farmers are going broke cause they get paid next to nothing then massive markups by the time it gets to supermarket!!! And Massive companies making huge $$$ out of crap food that cost nothing to make and they can sell at tiny prices!!!
How about making a soda tax $.02-$0.03 per ounce. The 64 oz Bladder Buster that was $.79 is now around $2.50. Might have some impact1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »A 2lt bottle of Coke.....$0.99 with a 10% sugar tax $1.10......block of chocolate $2.50 with tax $2.75 I don't think it's going to make a difference!!! A kg of apples about 5-6 apples $5, a rock melon $4.90 each.....How about we have a fresh food subsidy? I can feed my kids on junk after school for under $5 and it would last a couple of days...But fresh fruit would cost me $10 a day easy!!!.....thats our problem!! Farmers are going broke cause they get paid next to nothing then massive markups by the time it gets to supermarket!!! And Massive companies making huge $$$ out of crap food that cost nothing to make and they can sell at tiny prices!!!
How about making a soda tax $.02-$0.03 per ounce. The 64 oz Bladder Buster that was $.79 is now around $2.50. Might have some impact
Problem is our supermarkets will still have a soft drink special at 1/2 price.......perhaps we need to stop the big supermarkets from putting these items on special????0 -
summerkissed wrote: »A 2lt bottle of Coke.....$0.99 with a 10% sugar tax $1.10......block of chocolate $2.50 with tax $2.75 I don't think it's going to make a difference!!! A kg of apples about 5-6 apples $5, a rock melon $4.90 each.....How about we have a fresh food subsidy? I can feed my kids on junk after school for under $5 and it would last a couple of days...But fresh fruit would cost me $10 a day easy!!!.....thats our problem!! Farmers are going broke cause they get paid next to nothing then massive markups by the time it gets to supermarket!!! And Massive companies making huge $$$ out of crap food that cost nothing to make and they can sell at tiny prices!!!
Are you in the US? Where I live, I could swing after-school snacks of apples, bananas, or oranges for a couple of kids (not sure how many you have) for much less than $10 a day.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »A 2lt bottle of Coke.....$0.99 with a 10% sugar tax $1.10......block of chocolate $2.50 with tax $2.75 I don't think it's going to make a difference!!! A kg of apples about 5-6 apples $5, a rock melon $4.90 each.....How about we have a fresh food subsidy? I can feed my kids on junk after school for under $5 and it would last a couple of days...But fresh fruit would cost me $10 a day easy!!!.....thats our problem!! Farmers are going broke cause they get paid next to nothing then massive markups by the time it gets to supermarket!!! And Massive companies making huge $$$ out of crap food that cost nothing to make and they can sell at tiny prices!!!
Are you in the US? Where I live, I could swing after-school snacks of apples, bananas, or oranges for a couple of kids (not sure how many you have) for much less than $10 a day.
I live in Australia....Tasmania to be exact.
Yesterday I brought apples $6kg, Bananas $4kg a rock melon $3.90 a pineapple $5 and a honeydew melon $5.90....i don't put a price on my families health so I buy it! But when I walked into the supermarket at the front was a stand of half price chocolate blocks $2.20each and big bags of chips $1.20 each 30 can blocks of Coke $9 so for the same amount of money I spent on fruit I could have got 30 cans cordial 3 blocks of chocolate and 4 bags of chips.....see now that is the problem!!!!
I have 1 banana left a couple of apples and the rest was eaten...2 growing kids aged 10 and 13!
0 -
summerkissed wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »A 2lt bottle of Coke.....$0.99 with a 10% sugar tax $1.10......block of chocolate $2.50 with tax $2.75 I don't think it's going to make a difference!!! A kg of apples about 5-6 apples $5, a rock melon $4.90 each.....How about we have a fresh food subsidy? I can feed my kids on junk after school for under $5 and it would last a couple of days...But fresh fruit would cost me $10 a day easy!!!.....thats our problem!! Farmers are going broke cause they get paid next to nothing then massive markups by the time it gets to supermarket!!! And Massive companies making huge $$$ out of crap food that cost nothing to make and they can sell at tiny prices!!!
Are you in the US? Where I live, I could swing after-school snacks of apples, bananas, or oranges for a couple of kids (not sure how many you have) for much less than $10 a day.
I live in Australia....Tasmania to be exact.
Yesterday I brought apples $6kg, Bananas $4kg a rock melon $3.90 a pineapple $5 and a honeydew melon $5.90....i don't put a price on my families health so I buy it! But when I walked into the supermarket at the front was a stand of half price chocolate blocks $2.20each and big bags of chips $1.20 each 30 can blocks of Coke $9 so for the same amount of money I spent on fruit I could have got 30 cans cordial 3 blocks of chocolate and 4 bags of chips.....see now that is the problem!!!!
I have 1 banana left a couple of apples and the rest was eaten...2 growing kids aged 10 and 13!
Neither the chocolate nor the bags of chips are a kilo each though.1 -
Fruit and chips are not really substitutes for each other (at least not nutritionally), so the price of chips should not affect the affordability of fruit. I never understand this idea that you can buy chips cheaper than fruit so that's a problem. The only question is whether the fruit is affordable (fruit and veg are quite inexpensive where I live unless you go out of your way to buy the most expensive things, and for that matter plain potatoes are cheaper for the same volume than chips.) That chips may be super cheap only means if you want them too they aren't hard to afford. It's not stopping you from buying fruit. It doesn't make fruit itself more expensive.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions