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?
Options
Replies
-
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"2 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
This is how it is used in the US as well. At least, based on the situations I have encountered people using the term.0 -
Why am I not shocked that the line in my previous comment stating "Please note---I said self inflicted. I am not advocating we stop helping all disabled people nor want to start a discussion on the specific definition of self inflicted...this is a concept." was totally ignored and noted for discussion??? The point is...we all have freedom of choice...but it is not a "right" granted in the constitution of our founding fathers for all the people to pay for some of the peoples mistakes. Unfortunately that "some" is increasing in numbers at an alarming rate. I don't stick needles into peoples arms, I don't force people to get involved with meth nor shove Twinkies into anyone's mouth. Those are choices to live by...and I seriously doubt any of those people would be a 78 year old farmer who worked hard all his life nor hurt a knee on the tennis court. That was totally taken out of context.1
-
Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-12
I would also really hesitate to call the Nissan Qashquai or Nissan Juke an SUV...at least in terms of what the US calls an SUV.
Nissan Juke SUV:
Best selling vehicle in the U.S. as of Sept 2017..Ford F series...
#2 Chevy Silverado...
#3 Ram p/u
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. My biggest thing would be what would be considered "junk"
0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-12
I would also really hesitate to call the Nissan Qashquai or Nissan Juke an SUV...at least in terms of what the US calls an SUV.
Nissan Juke SUV:
Best selling vehicle in the U.S. as of Sept 2017..Ford F series...
#2 Chevy Silverado...
#3 Ram p/u
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. My biggest thing would be what would be considered "junk"
Yeah, I think the Qashqai is smaller than a Juke. Would not be surprised if you could put one in the bed of an F-150.
Friends with large pickups would say their vehicle craps bigger things than the Qashqai0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern.
I pointed out the breakdown of added sugar in the UK diet. Only 5% is from savory foods.For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full".
Are you talking about pre packaged meals in general, or some hypothetical sugar-filled high cal pre-packaged meal? I suspect that most calories from pre-packaged meals that are high cal are from fat and starchy refined carbs, not added sugar. And worth noting that just as many are not high cal. When they are high cal, it's usually obvious. And again, as I said before, only 5% of the added sugar in the UK diet is from savory items, which this would be.This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree.
I seriously doubt that many people consume 2 meals a day of frozen meals and then get fat because they think that's healthy but are not full. Certainly not those not actively trying to diet and then if they aren't satisfied they should adjust. I think it's far more common for people to think prepackaged meals are bad for them (even if they aren't) and that eating so many of them would be terrible. I also think more likely they do it for lunches or an occasional thing or simply aren't really watching what they eat so much and eating what they like, not overeating because they accidentally regularly ate frozen meals that they found unsatisfying because they thought this was a healthy approach.it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
So eating an Amy's Light and Lean is responsible for someone then going out and eating lots of sugar?1 -
svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.3 -
svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I would suggest that if you have a study you post it.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I would suggest that if you have a study you post it.
It's relatively easy to Google the name and title, because I can't quite attach a pdf study.3 -
svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I would suggest that if you have a study you post it.
It's relatively easy to Google the name and title, because I can't quite attach a pdf study.
It's relatively easy to post a link.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I would suggest that if you have a study you post it.
It's relatively easy to Google the name and title, because I can't quite attach a pdf study.
It's relatively easy to post a link.
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full
I think that should work otherwise I can't quite link a straight downloaded PDF0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I would suggest that if you have a study you post it.
It's relatively easy to Google the name and title, because I can't quite attach a pdf study.
You said "a study by Johnson et al." You do know that Johnson is the second most common surname in the US?3 -
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. [Ah, I guess we were cross posting]
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)?0 -
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.
0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »The term hidden in this sense relates to an item one would consider a healthy option. The sugar in this is thus, hidden.
The term "hidden", in any sense, relates to something that is concealed or deliberately difficult to detect. Just because people assume that something is "healthy" and therefore won't have added sugar does not make anything "hidden", particularly when it is right there on the label.
Even when a product does not have a label, it doesn't make added sugar "hidden". It's an ingredient. Any cook worth their salt (or sugar) knows that sugar is added to a vast amount of dishes, and has been for a very long time, even savoury dishes. Doesn't make it hidden.
Jesus Christ, it's the terminology used in the UK - so yes, where I'm from, it's hidden sugar.
No its not. I'm from the uk and hidden sugar as a phrase isn't a thing (or where I am it isnt)
I guess you don't watch much TV or read the news then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8849j6
It's just a buzzword. It's not legitimate vernacular. It's basically a clickbait phrase
Oh, even though the NHS uses the exact phrase too?
A quick Google of NHS and hidden sugar didn't bring up a single nhs.uk site using that phrase. Added sugar, yes. Hidden sugar, no.
Search for NHS sugar exposed leaflet.
That was produced by one areas dental dept....not the nhs as a whole.
I've seen a lot about added sugars on the nhs general site.
Fair enough, I accept the source isn't top notch. I'm happy to accept it may just be a buzzword, but it still reiterates that the term is used in the UK.
The term is used is Australia too, but not in any legitimate or reputable way. It's just buzzword fear mongering "ohhh big sugar is hiding sugar in your food to make you fat!"
I admit that I may have been wrong towards the actual legitimate use of the term "hidden sugars" in an actual healthcare system or studis etc, but in an obesity epidemic where sugar seems to be an increasing additive to the foods we eat, whether they be healthy or non healthy options, there does lie some credibility that actually, it could be an underlying issue of health concern. For what it's worth, I do understand the arguments put forward in this topic regarding obesity being a cause of overeating, but I also would like to add that the overeating occurs possibly because of the consumption of such "empty calories". For instance, not everybody logs their daily meals, and what they may seem is an innocent meal or healthy option in say, a pre packaged processed meal, may not provide an individual with a fulfilling meal yet is laced with calories and sugars that far exceeds the benefit it gives in terms of "feeling full". This to occur as a standard twice daily (on the basis that breakfast won't contain a processed "quick meal") can lead to overeating in calories, yet not feeling like overeating as the meal hasn't provided you with sufficient "fullness" to a degree. That is the angle I believe is trying to be portrayed when "hidden sugars" are discussed. Again, upon reflection of my previous statements and input from others, it may not be the actual sugar within the foodstuff that causes the health issues, but rather that because the foods are laden with such empty calories they lead to overeating and excess consumption of sugars.
I do appreciate you clarifying and acknowledging you may have been focusing on the wrong terminology. I do still disagree with what I think you are now proposing. You're now talking about ready meals, that you believe people choose because they are healthy, but because they are not satiating, the people eating them tend to overeat later and consume over their calories thus putting them in a surplus and leading to weight gain and obesity, is that right? I still don't understand what that has to do with sugar consumption?
For what it's worth, I eat frozen meals for lunch at work a few times a week. They tend to be about 300-400 cals and i add some extra chicken or frozen veggies for protein and bulk, takes it up to the 500 cal level usually. That's perfectly satiating and doesn't send me running for a cookie or a piece of cake later, which, if I were still hungry, I wouldn't choose something like that, I would probably get some nuts or hummus or a Greek yogurt. I also often eat a prepackaged breakfast sandwich or a breakfast bowl with egg whites, turkey sausage, potatoes and cheese. It's about 250 cals and with my coffee and creamer, takes me to 350 for the morning which is fine till lunch.
I'm just trying to understand what you feel is so nefarious about these foods that is leading people to blindly over eat, under the premise that they made one healthy choice so now it's a free for all? If that's the case, and that's what you're saying, I'm not sure why you're blaming food and food manufacturers when this comes down to personal accountability and making sensible choices.
I would suggest reading a study by Johnson et al about the role of sugar in the epidemic of obesity and diabetes to see my angle regarding sugar consumption and because of its availability in our foodstuff leads to health issues.
With regards to ready made meals, I wasn't pointing out that people will necessarily see them as THE healthy option, but certainly healthier than eating a whole pack of chocolate and because of its ease to useany people do consume such without eating within their guidelines. Because you may find and meal satisfying, the next 100 people who consume so perhaps wont.
And regarding your last point, the blame is placed on manufacturers from my point as 1) the way foodstuffs are advertised plays a big role on consumption 2) see the rise of fast food consumption globally, which has definitely had an impact on the obesity epidemic 3) not everyone is in the position to make a meal from scratch, or fully understands what it is they eat, but rather purchase blind based on appearance etc again, this comes to marketing and manufacturer behaviour 4) the arguments correlate to how consumer behavior and addictions are created because of manufacturer behaviour - recently there has been a big push in the cigarette industry to charecterise the health impact of smoking, yet think how previously advertising and marketing of these products were portrayed. Now think of that but within the food industry. How are everyday foodstuffs marketed to consumers, irrespective of how healthy they may be deemed on a scale of 1-10. You are more likely to find the foodstuffs that are tipping towards the 10 on the scale in terms of "unhealthy" be marketed in a glamorous way preconditioning consumer behaviour, very much like how smoking was portrayed all those decades ago.
I would suggest that if you have a study you post it.
It's relatively easy to Google the name and title, because I can't quite attach a pdf study.
It's relatively easy to post a link.
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full
I think that should work otherwise I can't quite link a straight downloaded PDF
The interesting thing to note about that study is that is does not draw the conclusion that sugar is the problem - it is using the information that is presented to form the working hypothesis that sugar (fructose) is a problem that future studies may prove to be correct.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions