Graces7 wrote: » Lovely when you see a small child in a supermarket trolley chewing an apple or a bread roll. That is when to start them.
_Brian wrote: » Sugary fizzy drinks are among the most calorie dense nutritionally empty thing a kid can consume, they really are pointless and some kids are let have them ad lib, increasing the price will hopefully lessen their availability. “Adults” here whinging about their treats are near as bad, either pay the extra or don’t and change your treat. It’s adukts resting this rubbish as treats that engrain into kids that it’s a treat to have, maybe if more adults show a better example the kids follow. People are picking out individual ingredients to whinge about and probably drink regularly when alcohol is as much a poison as anything else they are pointing out. Education is the key but a whole lower socioeconomic group won’t be told how to feed master Tom or princess Brittany and so continue to shove all Sorts of rubbish into them, making these trash foods more expensive will hopefully lessen their availability. With approaching 25% of kids overweight or obease we should be applauding every single individual action that’s taken to somewhat help. My OH works with some of these kids and when a mother is coming in reporting giving skips to a 12 week old kid, what chance has that kid to develop a taste for anything but trash and it’s already essentially guaranteed to be obease just like both it’s prents are. Parents need to step up their game and live the lives they want their kids to live. If you eat trash and drink your head off every weekend then that’s the example your setting for your kids, they lead a more sedintary life then we ever did and your condemning them to a life of overweight and obeasity with all the negative mental and physical health problems that go with it.
patnor1011 wrote: » I am not sure who do you want to applaud for this one as while some sugar is removed from soda drinks, they are actually more sweet than before. That is due to artificial sweeteners being hundred times more sweet than poor old sugar. There was a study made by some university in the US recently which pointed to the fact that artificial sweeteners are actually much worse than sugar. That is why obese people are gaining weight while drinking "diet" soda. There should be pressure on manufacturers to cut sugar say in half and do not simply substitute it with artificial sweeteners. All that sugar tax rhetoric about how we need to fight against obesity is ridiculous when we are being stuffed with something which is way more dangerous than sugar. The only drinks without artificial sweeteners I was able to find are Sanpellegrino Grapefruit variety and Club orange. I mix them with sparkling water 50/50 and they still taste great.
TerrorFirmer wrote: » I don't get what you're trying to say here. How are artificial sweeteners much worse or actually dangerous? Fat people gain weight while drinking diet drinks because it stimulates their cravings to eat more crap....not from the drinks themselves. For most normal people, or children, the only difference is there's no empty, nutrition less calories in artificially sweetened drinks. For example, say you went out one night and had ten rum and diet cokes, versus ten rum and cokes. That's literally a different of about 1,200 calories. If you drank one can of coke a day, that'd be about 1, 400 additional calories a week. There are kids who would do this.
patnor1011 wrote: » Forget counting calories. Zero calories claim is just marketing ploy aimed at people like you and actually far from reality. I am not going to link all places which talk about how artificial sweeteners are worse than sugar as there is simply way too many of them so put simple "artificial sweeteners study 2018" in google. It will make your head spin and it comes from places like ScienceDaily, Forbes, usanews and not some nutcase conspiracy websites. Artificial sweeteners in concentration as is available right now are not just worse than sugar, they are outright deadly. The only people benefiting from sugar tax are manufacturers which now do have a perfect excuse to simply substitute sugar with artificial sweeteners in unbelievable quantities and to put it everywhere. The main reason here is profit as they are much cheaper than sugar. I never liked soda as it was too sweet to my liking and I had to "cut" it with water to be able to drink some. What concerns me is the fact that we are being forced to accept huge quantities of something which was originally designed to be used sparsely and occasionally by people who could not touch sugar. There are no studies done about prolonged intake of artificial sweeteners in excessive quantities. And we have no idea what this will do with children. How does one collect sugar tax on an item where there is no sugar yet it is now sweeter than before?
"It is not as simple as 'stop using artificial sweeteners' being the key to solving overall health outcomes related to diabetes and obesity," added Dr Hoffman. "If you chronically consume these foreign substances (as with sugar) the risk of negative health outcomes increases. As with other dietary components, I like to tell people moderation is the key if one finds it hard to completely cut something out of their diet."
Deleted User wrote: » My blood sugars were in the diabetes range for around six months last year so I had to cut everything out.. Sugar, white bread, potatoes, everything. You would not eat your sugary snacks if you went through the sheer inconvenience of that. Sugar tastes utterly disgusting to me now. "I'm healthy." has nothing to do with raising your chances of becoming diabetic. Irish people don't even get health checks regularly so how would you know.
AnnoyedWithRTE wrote: » Deleted User wrote: » My blood sugars were in the diabetes range for around six months last year so I had to cut everything out.. Sugar, white bread, potatoes, everything. You would not eat your sugary snacks if you went through the sheer inconvenience of that. Sugar tastes utterly disgusting to me now. "I'm healthy." has nothing to do with raising your chances of becoming diabetic. Irish people don't even get health checks regularly so how would you know. The recent film What the Health raised the question as to whether sugar or other carbohydrates cause diabetes. The notion is understandable. Blood sugar levels are high in diabetes, so a common idea has held that eating sugar somehow triggers the disease process. However, the major diabetes organizations take a different view. The American Diabetes Association1 and Diabetes UK2 have labelled this notion a “myth,” as has the Joslin Diabetes Center,3 which wrote, “Diabetes is not caused by eating too much sugar.” These and other organizations have worked to educate people about the causes of diabetes and the role that foods play in the disease process.
silverharp wrote: » I'd bet they are compromised organisations , a lot of money in treating chronic diseases also food industry incentivised to say nothing to see here. Despicable , the smoking industry scandal of this century
P_1 wrote: » Diabetic here. You don't get diabetes from eating sugar. This really boils my fcuking piss. Type 1 is genetic when your pancreas simply stops producing insulin. Type 2 is when your arteries are too clogged for the insulin to pass through.Please stop with this uneducated horsesh Another thing as a result of this is that we have now lost Lucozade as an effective treatment for hypoglycemia. Though that should be on the companies who, in a massive misstep decided to reduce sugar from the recopies rather than simply leaving them be and giving us the bloody choice to pay the tax if we wanted.
TerrorFirmer wrote: » That exact google brings to me to multiple articles based on findings presented recently at an expo which simply find that sweeteners can have negative impacts similar to normal sugar products when consumed in large quantities. It does not say they are worse, it does not say they are dangerous, it does not say they are 'outright deadly'. It seems to suggest that in higher concentrations it can have negative impacts on the body, in similar ways than normal soft drinks do via different mechanisms which are not yet fully understood or studied. No-one would dispute that's a strong possibility but it doesn't support what you're claiming these articles in fact do say. In fact a quote: There also have been quite a lot of studies into Aspartame and none have really found any credible links to major disease to date. So I would like to hear your evidence as to why it is 'outright deadly' or is it based on hysteria rather than fact?
patnor1011 wrote: » Oh but they are deadly. Most if not all of them but mainly aspartame - one of the most widely used. No hysteria involved.
patnor1011 wrote: » People need to spend bit more time on this subject than just going through a few googled links on the first page when searching. Then you will find some eye openers like this one: H. J. Roberts, M.D., in Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic It is a little bit expensive reading but worth every cent.
Deleted User wrote: » It doesn't matter if you're overweight or not. It's terrible for you and should be regulated as such.
Graces7 wrote: » Fond memories of pink candy floss at fairs in my long ago childhood,, ie over 70 there was almost no obesity and almost no chemicals in food. I tend to eat the same pattern now.
Graces7 wrote: » Surely replacing sugar with a nutritionally empty chemical is defeating the real object? To train out a "sweet tooth"?
Patww79 wrote: » This post has been deleted.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
