Sugar its like a poison

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
Baalzamon
Posts: 5334
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Yangebup

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Baalzamon » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:53 pm

Tyrantrum wrote:Sugar is essential for providing energy, and the brain works better with it. Just don't eccessively take it in.


I quit sugar a year ago and I'm not looking back. My brain loves my ketones.
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

big booty
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:33 pm

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby big booty » Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:00 am

Agreed, the brain is able to function on ketones as well as glucose.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby mikesbytes » Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:31 am

Well I've learn't something new, I didn't know that the sugar the brain uses was a different sugar to the sugar our brains use.

I understand the concept "sugar free" to be the avoidance of added sugar and concentrated sugar.
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
find_bruce
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby find_bruce » Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:22 am

mikesbytes wrote:Well I've learn't something new, I didn't know that the sugar the brain uses was a different sugar to the sugar our brains use.

I understand the concept "sugar free" to be the avoidance of added sugar and concentrated sugar.

Other common sugars are fructose (fruit) & lactose (milk). While the concept of no added sugar is a good one, the problem is the marketing "gurus" get involved with packaged food. A couple examples of deceptive tactics include
  • replacing up to half the added sucrose with high fructose corn syrup - they can hide the added sugar further down the the list of ingredients;
  • by substituting fruit juice for sucrose - tinned fruit advertised as "no added sugar" is laced with juice concentrate that is high in fructose so that the sugar content can be higher than fruit with added sugar.
To see the extent of their tricks you need to look at the nutrition panels, assuming that the manufacturer is honest (unlike GlaxoSmithKline & Ribena).

I have to pay close attention to ingredient lists because (1) like you I want to avoid added sugar & (2) I am allergic to oats, sunflower seeds & linseed. It seems that virtually all processed food fails one or both of my requirements.

The result that I mostly prepare my own meals from scratch - which is not a bad thing.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby mikesbytes » Wed Oct 12, 2016 4:28 pm

Oops sorry about the bad typo in my post

I'd see high fructose corn syrup as concentrated sugar.

If I'm purchasing a packaged product then I'll read the nutritional information for the total sugar, so playing games by splitting the sugar into several ingredients doesn't work for me, though it will certainly trick some.

Cane sugar is dirt cheap in Australia and corn syrup is dirt cheap in the US so they are great for making commercial products tasty
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Baalzamon
Posts: 5334
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Yangebup

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Baalzamon » Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:42 pm

To figure out how much "sugar" a product is giving you. Take the carbs and divide by 4. ie 16 carbs, 4 fibre is 4 teaspoons of sugar that is converted to glucose in the body.

Reason why they are dirt cheap is subsidized by government bodies
Masi Speciale CX 2008 - Brooks B17 special saddle, Garmin Edge 810
Image

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby mikesbytes » Wed Nov 23, 2016 10:23 pm

I noticed that when GST put tax on soft drink that it made no difference to the retail price, as the price wasn't based on the cost of the ingredients and packaging. This article is talking about 40% tax

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/22/australia-should-introduce-40-sugar-tax-on-sweetened-drinks-grattan-report?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-3
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:06 am

Having come back to Australia to immediately have a sickie, I spent most of day lying on the sofa watching the TV, in particular Doco's on iView. One I struck was talking about the food industry in a similar way to the Tobacco industry and its lobbying. Gave 2 examples, both in the US;
1. A council (or whatever they call it over there) decided to put a tax on Soda (we say soft drink). The food industry and cinema industry put US$4mil into a campaign to swash it buying up every billboard in the area and this went against the Council's $70k. It was swashed, they even got to the Mayor who in the end was saying it was a tax on poor.
2. In New York the Mayor wanted to limit the size of the soda's, they were quoting the size in Oz's so I didn't get an idea of the sizing but they mentioned serving sizes and the size the Mayor wanted to limit to was 2 servings where the bigger one he wanted to be banned was 4 servings. It was swashed
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Nobody
Posts: 8458
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Nobody » Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:53 am

mikesbytes wrote:One I struck was talking about the food industry in a similar way to the Tobacco industry and its lobbying. Gave 2 examples, both in the US

Got a link?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby mikesbytes » Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:38 am

Nobody wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:One I struck was talking about the food industry in a similar way to the Tobacco industry and its lobbying. Gave 2 examples, both in the US

Got a link?


I think it was this one. Appologies if I've got it wrong, I was watching various iView TV shows on the app on the TV

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/men-who-made-us-thin/ZX9891A003S00\

Might of been further in, hope your got plenty of time....
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby mikesbytes » Sun May 07, 2017 8:51 pm

Nobody, did you manage to find it?

Stumbled upon this paper that's recommending a sugar tax in Australia. It's quite extensive and I've only skimmed over it, so I'm interested in opinions on it

https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/880-A-sugary-drinks-tax.pdf
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

Nobody
Posts: 8458
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Nobody » Sun May 07, 2017 11:15 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Nobody, did you manage to find it?

Thanks for the link. I've seen that series before. I was interested as it may have been something new. But ABC seem to be doing a lot of recycling in recent years. Probably budget cuts.

mikesbytes wrote:Stumbled upon this paper that's recommending a sugar tax in Australia. It's quite extensive and I've only skimmed over it, so I'm interested in opinions on it

https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/880-A-sugary-drinks-tax.pdf


Not all obesity is caused by [sugar-sweetened beverages] – in fact we estimate about 10 per
cent of Australia’s obesity problem is due to these drinks.

Interesting. But as I may have said previously, if they are going to have a sugar tax (fair enough), then why not also have a fat tax? I know plenty of people who don't have a sweet tooth, but are obese. Then you could have an animal products tax because they cause plenty of health and environmental problems. A processed food tax? A high density food tax? Restaurant/fast food tax? Addictive foods tax?
Sugars are part of the problem, at least for some. But so are:
animal products
vegetable oils
fats (too much and/or wrong types)
processed foods (even breads for some)
salt

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby mikesbytes » Mon May 08, 2017 10:43 am

10% doesn't seem enough to single out a particular food type and/or delivery method. What you have written about food types has some similarities to the Kj tax I mentioned in the diet thread.

Another angle would be a processing tax, basically take the current 2 tier system we have (0% GST, 10% GST) and add a 3rd tier on manufactured products that provide little with their Kj's such as soft drinks. Of this opens up the complexity of what is good for us and what is bad for us and that's something the experts disagree on.
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

duncanm
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby duncanm » Tue May 09, 2017 7:36 am

While you're there, why don't you propose a lack-of-exercise-tax, a carbohydrate tax, a dangerous activity tax (rock fishing, climbing, hangliding, skiiing, surfing, those sorts of things), a sedentary tax, some more vehicle taxes and an idiocy tax (for the Darwin contenders).

People should have responsibility for their own health. I don't want the state determining what I should eat (via taxes), nor do I think they need to squander more of my money!

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby mikesbytes » Tue May 09, 2017 4:53 pm

The purpose of the tax I'm thinking of is the encourage the food manufacturers and fast food retailers to provide a better quality product
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

duncanm
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby duncanm » Tue May 09, 2017 5:11 pm

mikesbytes wrote:The purpose of the tax I'm thinking of is the encourage the food manufacturers and fast food retailers to provide a better quality product


taxes don't tend to encourage anything -- they just end up punishing the consumer with higher costs.

If people want better quality (I think you meant 'healthier') products, they'll buy them. Demand goes up, manufacturers adjust supply.

Consumer education is the answer - not punitive taxes and regulations.

I like some luxuries like sugary soft drinks and alcohol occasionally -- as I'm sure many here do.

Or would you like to force people to buy their fast food at Oliver's rather than Maccas ?

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby mikesbytes » Tue May 09, 2017 9:46 pm

I ate lunch at Macca's today;
- Long black 4Kj
- Cheese Tomato toastie 1280Kj
- Garden Salad 120Kj
$10.something
Might be a tad out on the Kj's, its off memory

The tax wouldn't be enough to affect poor people and could be nutralised by adjust tax threshold and/or benefits. The objective is to provide insensitive to improve the quality of fast food
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

ko
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 11:47 am

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby ko » Wed May 10, 2017 11:52 am

Nikolai wrote:
zill wrote:However, this tax (ideally) would really put in reality that sugary processed foods are a treat and only as a treat and only on special occasions like birthdays!



If you want $1,000 mud cakes, may I ask you why are you penalizing me because of some people, perhaps, eat too many of them? In fact, I don't touch them, find them disgusting, but my kids like them and I buy them from time to time for one reason or another. Why should I, lean and in good form, pay $1,000 for a cake? Can you please explain?


Mate nobody is forcing you to buy a mud cake, just like nobody is forcing anybody to smoke. However like smoking, high sugar and processed foods have a detrimental impact on society and should be taxed. In what reality does it make sense that a bottle of soft drink is cheaper than a bottle of water. Yet that is our reality.

duncanm
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby duncanm » Wed May 10, 2017 4:36 pm

ko wrote:
Nikolai wrote:
zill wrote:However, this tax (ideally) would really put in reality that sugary processed foods are a treat and only as a treat and only on special occasions like birthdays!



If you want $1,000 mud cakes, may I ask you why are you penalizing me because of some people, perhaps, eat too many of them? In fact, I don't touch them, find them disgusting, but my kids like them and I buy them from time to time for one reason or another. Why should I, lean and in good form, pay $1,000 for a cake? Can you please explain?


Mate nobody is forcing you to buy a mud cake, just like nobody is forcing anybody to smoke. However like smoking, high sugar and processed foods have a detrimental impact on society and should be taxed. In what reality does it make sense that a bottle of soft drink is cheaper than a bottle of water. Yet that is our reality.


In the current reality where there are fools easily parted with their money. Bottled water is expensive because idiots are willing to pay for it.

I too am relatively healthy, but don't mind the odd treat (nor do my kids). Nobody is forcing me to buy a mud cake, but some of you people want to force me to pay more tax when I do buy a mud cake, Why?

If you want to go down the 'detrimental impact on society' slope - then explain to us why there is not a similar argument for central control of everything you consume (food and entertainment) or do (recreation, work) - all with the aim of a better society, of course.

btw - smokers pay far more in taxes than they cost society in their (and others) ill-health. Ponder that for a second.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby mikesbytes » Wed May 10, 2017 5:16 pm

Its off topic but the figures I saw was that tax on smokes was $5B annual and that the cost to the community of smoking is $25B annual.

The tax on smokes and booze are punitive taxes to discourage consumption by the consumer. I don't see an issue with this being extended to other forms of consumption however I'm seeing more as an incentive to the food manufacturers and retailers to improve the quality of their product.

Like many thing in society we are going to disagree as the topic isn't black and white, its complex
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

duncanm
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby duncanm » Wed May 10, 2017 6:01 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Its off topic but the figures I saw was that tax on smokes was $5B annual and that the cost to the community of smoking is $25B annual.


ahh - that old chestnut.

Lets see: http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/ ... mono64.pdf

Table on pp xii, 2004/5
Health (net) $318M
Production in the workplace $5.7B
Production in the home $9.8B

Impact on federal/state budgets. pp xiv
Net revenue: $2.8B/$0.94B
Expenditure: $154M/105M

So about 2% of the 'costs' of smoking are real. The rest are 'intangible' losses from loss of productivity at work or home, primarily due to early mortality rates, and no doubt they've also counted the lost time standing around having a fag.

The 'cost to society' of smoking is a net benefit for non-smokers.

more thorough analysis here: http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com ... stics.html

duncanm
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby duncanm » Wed May 10, 2017 6:10 pm

mikesbytes wrote: I don't see an issue with this being extended to other forms of consumption however I'm seeing more as an incentive to the food manufacturers and retailers to improve the quality of their product.


I'm afraid I'm really struggling with your logic here. Extra costs on production of goods will inevitably lead to increased prices of those goods. Its not an incentive for producers as much as a disincentive for consumers.

Btw - I hate artifically flavoured soft drink. I much prefer the sugary stuff.

ko
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 11:47 am

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby ko » Thu May 11, 2017 10:14 am

duncanm wrote:
ko wrote:
Nikolai wrote:

If you want $1,000 mud cakes, may I ask you why are you penalizing me because of some people, perhaps, eat too many of them? In fact, I don't touch them, find them disgusting, but my kids like them and I buy them from time to time for one reason or another. Why should I, lean and in good form, pay $1,000 for a cake? Can you please explain?


Mate nobody is forcing you to buy a mud cake, just like nobody is forcing anybody to smoke. However like smoking, high sugar and processed foods have a detrimental impact on society and should be taxed. In what reality does it make sense that a bottle of soft drink is cheaper than a bottle of water. Yet that is our reality.


In the current reality where there are fools easily parted with their money. Bottled water is expensive because idiots are willing to pay for it.

I too am relatively healthy, but don't mind the odd treat (nor do my kids). Nobody is forcing me to buy a mud cake, but some of you people want to force me to pay more tax when I do buy a mud cake, Why?

If you want to go down the 'detrimental impact on society' slope - then explain to us why there is not a similar argument for central control of everything you consume (food and entertainment) or do (recreation, work) - all with the aim of a better society, of course.

btw - smokers pay far more in taxes than they cost society in their (and others) ill-health. Ponder that for a second.


You really don't seem to get it do you? If you don't want to pay the extra tax for a mud cake, don't buy one, if you think the cost of a mud cake is too high, don't buy one. You aren't entitled to having a mud cake at a cost that you believe is reasonable, your mummy & daddy may have told you that you're special but you're not.

In reference to your last line, who cares? If smokers think the cost of smoking is too high, guess what? Nobody is forcing them to smoke and again they aren't entitled to affordable smoking, or entitled to smoking at a cost that is less (or equal) than its impact/cost to society.

duncanm
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby duncanm » Thu May 11, 2017 2:55 pm

ko wrote:
duncanm wrote:
ko wrote:
Mate nobody is forcing you to buy a mud cake, just like nobody is forcing anybody to smoke. However like smoking, high sugar and processed foods have a detrimental impact on society and should be taxed. In what reality does it make sense that a bottle of soft drink is cheaper than a bottle of water. Yet that is our reality.


In the current reality where there are fools easily parted with their money. Bottled water is expensive because idiots are willing to pay for it.

I too am relatively healthy, but don't mind the odd treat (nor do my kids). Nobody is forcing me to buy a mud cake, but some of you people want to force me to pay more tax when I do buy a mud cake, Why?

If you want to go down the 'detrimental impact on society' slope - then explain to us why there is not a similar argument for central control of everything you consume (food and entertainment) or do (recreation, work) - all with the aim of a better society, of course.

btw - smokers pay far more in taxes than they cost society in their (and others) ill-health. Ponder that for a second.


You really don't seem to get it do you? If you don't want to pay the extra tax for a mud cake, don't buy one, if you think the cost of a mud cake is too high, don't buy one. You aren't entitled to having a mud cake at a cost that you believe is reasonable, your mummy & daddy may have told you that you're special but you're not.

In reference to your last line, who cares? If smokers think the cost of smoking is too high, guess what? Nobody is forcing them to smoke and again they aren't entitled to affordable smoking, or entitled to smoking at a cost that is less (or equal) than its impact/cost to society.



awesome. With that logic, what's to stop taxing the absolute cr*p out of everything that someone-who-knows-better has determined is bad for you, or just doesn't particularly like?

you like a beer?
like some meat with your veg?
expect utilities (gas, electricity, water) to be affordable?
want to live in a spacious house that you can own (property rights) ?
want to use mobile telephony at reasonable rates?
prefer to ride your bike rather than use public transport?

You are not entitled to any of those things.

You don't seem to desire any basic freedoms, like eating a gooey indulgent cake with a strong coffee or coke on the side without some nanny coming in and rapping you on the knuckles for it.

What's sillier - is that you think that you're the arbiter of what's good and bad.

What if I don't like some of the things you do? Should I suggest that the government tax those?

If I'm not harming anyone else (/ society) -- stop trying to tell me, or 'encourage me' via taxes, how to live my life. That way leads to serfdom.

User avatar
Nikolai
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:55 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: Sugar its like a poison

Postby Nikolai » Thu May 11, 2017 10:47 pm

ko wrote:
Nikolai wrote:If you want $1,000 mud cakes, may I ask you why are you penalizing me because of some people, perhaps, eat too many of them? In fact, I don't touch them, find them disgusting, but my kids like them and I buy them from time to time for one reason or another. Why should I, lean and in good form, pay $1,000 for a cake? Can you please explain?


Mate nobody is forcing you to buy a mud cake, just like nobody is forcing anybody to smoke.


That's not what I asked (like 57 years ago?).

Let me rephrase then: Why do you think I have to pay for someone else's stupidity?

To turn the tables around, why are you forcing me to avoid eating mud cakes because at $1000 a pop I can't afford them?

ko wrote:However like smoking, high sugar and processed foods have a detrimental impact on society and should be taxed.


Taxes have solved drinking and drug problems. Therefore, taxes will solve the obesity problem. Is this your argument?

Return to “Cycling Health”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users