Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sugar Crash on Rté what a load of

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Just a small point that irritates me. Why is the unit of measurement for the amount of sugar frequently given as a "teaspoon"

    I know it enables people to visualise the quantity but it would be more beneficial to refer to the "grams" of sugar present more often, since this is what is given on food labels.

    We can talk about grams of fat and grams of salt - the constant use of "teaspoons of sugar" just sounds a bit condescending to me.


  • Options
    #93
    groovyg
    Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭groovyg


    anna080 wrote: »
    I appreciate that, and I know it's usually done. However this documentary wasn't just an updated version applicable to Irish people, it was a complete and utter rip off. Half of the information we saw given by industry specialists came from Fed Up, they just made it look like these big shot specialists in the USA took time from their schedule to inform Irish audiences of the dangers of sugar. Misleading and I believe plagiarism.

    I don't have Netflix and have never seen Fed up so whether it was a direct rip off or not I wouldn't have a clue. I watched the documentary last night and it didn't tell me anything that I didn't know already.

    I agree with the other poster if RTE had shown the one that was on Netflix Irish people probably wouldn't identify with it especially if was targeted it an American audience. I already see it with people who are a bit overweight, they think they are not too bad in comparison to morbidly obese people.


  • Options
    #94
    sideswipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭sideswipe


    joe40 wrote: »
    Just a small point that irritates me. Why is the unit of measurement for the amount of sugar frequently given as a "teaspoon"

    I know it enables people to visualise the quantity but it would be more beneficial to refer to the "grams" of sugar present more often, since this is what is given on food labels.

    We can talk about grams of fat and grams of salt - the constant use of "teaspoons of sugar" just sounds a bit condescending to me.

    People can visualise a teaspoon of sugar easier.


  • Options
    #95
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    joe40 wrote: »
    Just a small point that irritates me. Why is the unit of measurement for the amount of sugar frequently given as a "teaspoon"

    I know it enables people to visualise the quantity but it would be more beneficial to refer to the "grams" of sugar present more often, since this is what is given on food labels.

    We can talk about grams of fat and grams of salt - the constant use of "teaspoons of sugar" just sounds a bit condescending to me.

    I completely disagree with you, we're talking about educating people who have no idea how much sugar is in their food. Making it as easy as possible for them to understand it, is what's important. You'll get more of a reaction telling people who are uneducated about food, that there is 6 teaspoons of sugar in the sauce they just poured on their pasta, than if you told them 30g.

    Like I said, making it as easy as possible to understand is the best way to tackle this issue.


  • Options
    #96
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I completely disagree with you, we're talking about educating people who have no idea how much sugar is in their food. Making it as easy as possible for them to understand it, is what's important. You'll get more of a reaction telling people who are uneducated about food, that there is 6 teaspoons of sugar in the sauce they just poured on their pasta, than if you told them 30g.

    Like I said, making it as easy as possible to understand is the best way to tackle this issue.

    A historical review of the American diet.

    It's not just about the sugar.

    Base your diet on wholefoods, cook your own food, use fats your granny use and you won't be too far off. Reading labels isn't the answer, based your diet on foods which don't have labels

    https://youtu.be/HC20OoIgG_Y


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    squonk
    Registered Users Posts: 8,583 ✭✭✭squonk


    I bet Dr. Eva is causing more controversy on this forum today than she ever caused that time she acted like a total bítch to that that poor Operation Transformation contestant! :)


  • Options
    #98
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ford2600 wrote: »
    A historical review of the American diet.

    It's not just about the sugar.

    Base your diet on wholefoods, cook your own food, use fats your granny use and you won't be too far off. Reading labels isn't the answer, based your diet on foods which don't have labels

    https://youtu.be/HC20OoIgG_Y

    Which I did say earlier....
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Couldn't agree more. I think the biggest issue with sugar though, is that it's often hidden and we need to be more aware of where those sugars are hidden. Companies make out that products are healthy by calling them "low fat" but they're in fact, not healthy. Muller light yogurts - for example. Jars of Dolmio sauce etc.

    If we can get people eating food they've prepared/cooked themselves, eating natural versions of the food they're eating (natural yogurt with fresh berries added instead of a strawberry yogurt say or homemade bolognese) then we would have a lot less obesity to worry about.

    Getting people to read labels and see how much shyte is in food is what's going to stop them buying that food and choosing to cook their own with natural ingredients.


  • Options
    #99
    diarmuid05
    Registered Users Posts: 453 ✭✭diarmuid05


    Why cant we have a simple logo on every packet of a sugar cube with a number in it saying how many cubes of sugar are in the packet/tin/box/bottle etc

    None of this per 100g/percentage of carb ****e

    2Litre of coke - sugar cube with a big red 80


  • Options
    #100
    squonk
    Registered Users Posts: 8,583 ✭✭✭squonk


    diarmuid05 wrote: »
    Why cant we have a simple logo on every packet of a sugar cube with a number in it saying how many cubes of sugar are in the packet/tin/box/bottle etc

    None of this per 100g/percentage of carb ****e

    2Litre of coke - sugar cube with a big red 80

    I like your idea but I'd say the manufacturers would lobby against this big time. I do like how Aldo label their products. That array of red categories on their chocolate biscuits does actually make me think twice!

    To me, how manufacturers adopt food labeling standards seems to be all about massaging facts to the point where it's almost misrepresentation. Take a 500ml bottle of fizzy drink. The headline label says it has X calories and is Y% of your RDA. Dig a little deeper though and you see that's actually based on a 250ml serving which qualifies the bottle as a 2 serving pack. Seriously! Who is going to buy a 500ml botle of fizzy drink between them and their mate? I'd much prefer an overall reading of fat and sugar for the product as a whole, fine then also break it down by 100g portions also if needs be.


  • Options
    #101
    groovyg
    Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭groovyg


    squonk wrote: »
    I bet Dr. Eva is causing more controversy on this forum today than she ever caused that time she acted like a total bítch to that that poor Operation Transformation contestant! :)
    I know OT is well edited to show the best and worst bits to keep people coming back for more each week but I thought the abuse she got for giving out to that girl on OT was totally unfair. Why do people go on that show if they are not going to follow the plan and then lash out the tears when they get criticised.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,426 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    diarmuid05 wrote: »
    Why cant we have a simple logo on every packet of a sugar cube with a number in it saying how many cubes of sugar are in the packet/tin/box/bottle etc

    None of this per 100g/percentage of carb ****e

    2Litre of coke - sugar cube with a big red 80

    I used to be an anti-advocate for this (thinking it was nannying/dumbing down etc.) but watching the people on that show crawling around the supermarket peering at the backs of packets getting confused made me change my perception a bit. Some standardised simple number on a standard background could be ok. E.g. the number of teaspoons of sugar (where teaspoon is defined as 5 g fructose equivalent or something) per recommended portion on a recognisable logo or traffic light system at the base of the face of the product could be good. As long as you could work it out directly from the information that's still displayed on the back.

    I think I was mostly against it because people were saying the nutritional info was confusing and should be replaced with a traffic light. That kind of thing is way too simple.


  • Options
    #103
    diarmuid05
    Registered Users Posts: 453 ✭✭diarmuid05


    I fully believe the ingredients are deliberately displayed as complicated as legally possible - so people wont even bother to read them


    Not to mention all the different names for sugar....


  • Options
    #104
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭intheclouds


    squonk wrote: »
    To me, how manufacturers adopt food labeling standards seems to be all about massaging facts to the point where it's almost misrepresentation. Take a 500ml bottle of fizzy drink. The headline label says it has X calories and is Y% of your RDA. Dig a little deeper though and you see that's actually based on a 250ml serving which qualifies the bottle as a 2 serving pack. Seriously! Who is going to buy a 500ml botle of fizzy drink between them and their mate? I'd much prefer an overall reading of fat and sugar for the product as a whole, fine then also break it down by 100g portions also if needs be.

    My own pet peeve (I know its on some LIDL foods) is when they tell you all of the nutritional information is against 1 serving of 30 grams. Then you look for the amount in the packet. Its something that is no multiple of 30. Maybe 200 grams. So in order to know whats in the packet you are holding you have to divide 200 by 30 then multiply the answer by each bit of nutritional information you want to know.

    Who has time for this nonsense?


  • Options
    #105
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    joe40 wrote: »
    Just a small point that irritates me. Why is the unit of measurement for the amount of sugar frequently given as a "teaspoon"

    I know it enables people to visualise the quantity but it would be more beneficial to refer to the "grams" of sugar present more often, since this is what is given on food labels.

    We can talk about grams of fat and grams of salt - the constant use of "teaspoons of sugar" just sounds a bit condescending to me.

    RTE don't do the metric system. Operation Transformation is about losing 'a million pounds' as a nation. Ireland's Fittest Families were climbing over 'ten foot walls'. We converted to the metric system in the 1970s, but RTE hasn't caught up yet.


  • Options
    #106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,656 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    anna080 wrote: »
    But it was basically the same documentary rehashed, to a lower standard though. A lot of the material was exactly the same, same songs in the background, same tests done just with Irish families involved.

    If it gets the message out surely that's all that matters??. People like to give out about everything these days :mad::mad:


  • Options
    #107
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    If it gets the message out surely that's all that matters??. People like to give out about everything these days :mad::mad:

    Not giving out? Just pointing out something that was obvious to me.


  • Options
    #108
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,121 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    I also think a ban should be placed on displaying the sugar and fat levels for a quarter or a half of the pack, I see that quite often.

    Example, those little Snack chocolate biscuits, the Square ones with 6 in the pack. The figures they give are for 2 biscuits. Who ever opens the packet and eats 2? It's 6 every time!


  • Options
    #109
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,656 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    anna080 wrote: »
    Not giving out? Just pointing out something that was obvious to me.

    But not everyone has Netflix. Putting a programme like this on the national broadcaster get a much bigger target audience..... I don't understand why people are irritated/annoyed.
    The most this message gets out the better....... should be compulsive viewing in all schools . Who cares if it's repeated or like other programmes that are out there? The more people that are educated about the effects of a high sugar diet the better.


  • Options
    #110
    ants09
    Registered Users Posts: 709 ✭✭✭ants09


    neckedit wrote: »
    Try it yourself and see the difference.
    From a Diabetic who had to kick sugar to the kerb.

    Being a diabetic doesn't mean you have to kick sugar or give up sugar.
    pepe silvia wrote: »
    In fairness its surely different for a diabetic. Is that not like a lactose intolerant person telling other people they should stop drinking milk?

    Why is it different for a diabetic ?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    TBH I think it was excellent and should be compulsive viewing for those who are obese, overweight, have diabetes, high cholesterol and who have kids .....that covers most of us! I use only about 1 kg bag of sugar a year, ....I put it in nothing ....yet it's in almost everything 😡😡

    Actually if you are diagnosed as a diabetic, then you would be educated by your diabetic team, so why would you make them watch something like that (and suffer thought it :pac:) when they already know ?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Half a kilo of sugar a day .....are you serious??

    You don't have to be fat to have health issues from that level of sugar intake ....maybe not now but in the future. Type 2 diabetic is at epidemic levels and many of those who have it are young and not fat ! Educate yourself on the subject. This was pointed out in the programme ....the fact you are storing up problems for your future ...like the man with both legs amputated, was almost blind and had a liver transplant .....he wasn't even fat ....(what was left of him). It's a silent health hazard and especially scary when you see kids consuming that much 😱

    Are you actually sure about that ? being a epidemic or is it because its broadcast in such a way that its painted now as a epidemic ?

    Type 2 diabetes is around thousands of years and will be around thousands of years to come.

    That man had complications and sad but what about the millions of diabetics that have no complications they didn't broadcast that or put one on.


  • Options
    #111
    Dial Hard
    Registered Users Posts: 13,411 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    NIMAN wrote:
    Example, those little Snack chocolate biscuits, the Square ones with 6 in the pack. The figures they give are for 2 biscuits. Who ever opens the packet and eats 2? It's 6 every time!


    I eat chocolate about once a year and have, more than once, bought one of those, eaten two or three squares, put the rest of it in my desk drawer and then forgotten about it til months later when I went looking for treasury tags or something.

    I'm the reason facilties managers have to ban people from eating at their desks :-(


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,656 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ants09 wrote: »
    Being a diabetic doesn't mean you have to kick sugar or give up sugar.



    Why is it different for a diabetic ?



    Actually if you are diagnosed as a diabetic, then you would be educated by your diabetic team, so why would you make them watch something like that (and suffer thought it :pac:) when they already know ?



    Are you actually sure about that ? being a epidemic or is it because its broadcast in such a way that its painted now as a epidemic ?

    Type 2 diabetes is around thousands of years and will be around thousands of years to come.

    That man had complications and sad but what about the millions of diabetics that have no complications they didn't broadcast that or put one on.


    One word: Denial


  • Options
    #113
    ants09
    Registered Users Posts: 709 ✭✭✭ants09


    Deleted User wrote: »
    One word: Denial


    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Please :D:D:D

    Very funny from a T1 ;)


  • Options
    #114
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    But not everyone has Netflix. Putting a programme like this on the national broadcaster get a much bigger target audience..... I don't understand why people are irritated/annoyed.
    The most this message gets out the better....... should be compulsive viewing in all schools . Who cares if it's repeated or like other programmes that are out there? The more people that are educated about the effects of a high sugar diet the better.

    Okay. But the fact that not everyone in Ireland has Netfilx does not give Irish producers the allowance to virtually copy and paste a very popular, more skilfully produced programme. I'm not sure you are getting my point.


  • Options
    #115
    Dial Hard
    Registered Users Posts: 13,411 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    anna080 wrote:
    Okay. But the fact that not everyone in Ireland has Netfilx does not give Irish producers the allowance to virtually copy and paste a very popular, more skilfully produced programme. I'm not sure you are getting my point.


    You seem to think they did so in some sort of underhanded way. RTE are a national broadcaster, I can guarantee you they had permission to use all the footage shown.


  • Options
    #116
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    You seem to think they did so in some sort of underhanded way. RTE are a national broadcaster, I can guarantee you they had permission to use all the footage shown.

    Not sure where you got that from, I'm sure it was all above board, but that still doesn't make it right.


  • Options
    #117
    ants09
    Registered Users Posts: 709 ✭✭✭ants09


    Deleted User wrote: »
    One word: Denial

    Two words: Educate yourself


  • Options
    #118
    Taboola
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,052 ✭✭✭Taboola


    anna080 wrote: »
    Not sure where you got that from, I'm sure it was all above board, but that still doesn't make it right.

    Do you not think it's good that RTE showed something that a lot of the older generation of Ireland (who don't know what Netflix or have accounts) got the chance to see?


  • Options
    #119
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Taboola wrote: »
    Do you not think it's good that RTE showed something that a lot of the older generation of Ireland (who don't know what Netflix or have accounts) got the chance to see?

    Of course I do, but make your own. Don't take someone else's hard work and pass it off as your own.


  • Options
    #120
    neckedit
    Registered Users Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭neckedit


    ants09 wrote: »
    Being a diabetic doesn't mean you have to kick sugar or give up sugar.



    Why is it different for a diabetic ?



    Actually if you are diagnosed as a diabetic, then you would be educated by your diabetic team, so why would you make them watch something like that (and suffer thought it :pac:) when they already know ?



    Are you actually sure about that ? being a epidemic or is it because its broadcast in such a way that its painted now as a epidemic ?

    Type 2 diabetes is around thousands of years and will be around thousands of years to come.

    That man had complications and sad but what about the millions of diabetics that have no complications they didn't broadcast that or put one on.

    What?? Diabetics don't need to give up sugar???? Are you serious??? If you want a life on medications ending in injecting insulin.... you are correctly.......
    No diabetic is without complications. High blood pressure, Cardio vascular complications, Joint issues to mention only 3? I really can't understand the denial regarding this issue.
    You really need to educate your self on the matter before posting.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Diabetes for all \o/


Advertisement