Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Ask A Question' started by Listlad, Jun 4, 2019.
Just like arsenic...
I suppose it is for a person with a severe T2 condition.
Honest question: if sugar is banned, how will type 1's treat their hypos?
Get it on prescription, that is if you can afford it post Brexit when Trump does a free trade deal which includes the NHS with the UK gubberment.
Jelly babies on prescription?
Like many things, sugar itself is not the culprit. It is our excessive use that has been actively pushed by big business for many years. Our ancestors did have sugars whether it was from honey, beets or other, usually, unprocessed sources. I am sure many of you have heard the phrase 'value added' (not tax) that was used by business as a way to describe getting more profit from the same product with the lowest extra cost. This results in processing and more processing because instead of just a little sweet sugar-cane we have as @Tipetoo says 'Plenty of sugar from raw to white, plenty of molasses for Bundaberg Rum Distillery, and plenty left for stock feed.' Add a little to a food/drink product, promote the 'taste' of the product and watch the sales director's soaring graphs...
Just like a carbon footprint maybe a business should have a sugar footprint that carries additional tax that cannot be bought off. So no Value Added. Not too difficult to guess who would be pushing for lower sugar content in our processed foods and drinks.
Nanny state telling us what we can and can't go. I am responsible for my 12 yr olds sugar intake but education in schools would be the best place to hit.
I'm an ex smoker, gave up 15 yr ago. My choice if I want to though, the passive argument is fair but there is so much medical science TV news telling us, grilling food, butter, everything is bad for us, there'll be health warnings on everything.
I read the other week on sky news app, sniffing a lung full of your partners farts is good for you, apparently we fart 14 times per day. Who funds this stupid research, have you ever been stopped in the street and asked about your farting habits, how else would they get the data. What's next!
Nobody sems to appreciate that less sugar means more artificial sweeteners. Every interference in our lives comes with consequences, side effects that sometimes are worse than having taken no action at all. Smoking effects people around you [passive smoking], consuming sugar dooes not & so there is no comparison. However it would be the thin end of the wedge to demonise sugar because without any doubt, meat would be the next target.
That’s an interesting perspective and one you’re entitled to, but personally I’m not sure I agree. Everything we’ve ever been, seen or known, came from the heart of a dying star, so everything is a “natural” resource. Sucrose is heavily refined by man from a natural resource, but it’s not a whole food that grows out of the ground. If sugar, as it is surely defined in the context of this discussion, is a natural resource, then the petrol in the tank of my car is the same thing as prehistoric organic matter. Furthermore, even if it fell from the sky, it doesn’t necessarily mean it wouldn’t be harmful to humans. Only my opinion, of course. I just don’t feel that defining sugar as a natural resource is particularly meaningful. It’s about as helpful as fruit being recommended to diabetics because the sugar is “natural”.
I reiterate though that I do not favour legislation. I prefer to have the freedom to make my own choices.
On the subject of nutrients:
for an overview.
The definition includes energy sources. This obviously includes sugars.
The definition also includes carbohydrates. Sugars are carbohydrates.
Can you live on pure refined white sugar?
Realistically, yes you can, for a prolonged period but not forever.
Sugar and water will keep you alive for months.
This does involve metabolising some body protein for vital building blocks to keep your body running but you are getting almost all of your nutrition from the sugar.
Sugars are found throughout the plant kingdom and are an important energy store and source both for plants and animals.
The problem with modern food production is that we are getting "too much of a good thing" and a subset of the population suffers from metabolic problems with the safe handling of excess sugars and other carbohydrates.
Sugar isn't an essential nutrient to humans because we can get energy from other sources. However it is still classed as a nutrient.
I definitely find it harder to resist chocolate during times when it's front and centre of shop displays, like Easter and Christmas. So I think it would be good if shops could cut this out!
Otherwise, education is the key I think. It's personal choice and it doesn't affect others in the way that passive smoking does.
Perhaps settle on “macronutrient with no micronutrients” which places it in a pretty unique spot in the world of foodstuffs. It contains no vitamins and minerals. It burns fast and dirty and leaves you hungrier than when you started. Perhaps technically a nutrient but I think it’s a push to regard it as nourishment.
Yes...and have the REAL sugar amount (total carbs / 4) for carb based food shown on the front of a packet / packaging and TV adverts, or verbally voiced on radio.
As almost every person has been subtly and possibly against their choice addicted to sugar by its addition to almost every food product out there (barring the “as it grows” totally unprocessed foods) treating it the same as tobacco would be problematic. It wasn’t done by the individual to themselves voluntarily as tobacco is. It’s even harder to avoid than tobacco is. And in the type 1 case required in some circumstances medically, not sure tobacco ever is beneficial medically.
If all added sugars were to be removed, without replacing them with artificial sweeteners, a massive proportion of the majority’s diet would unrecognisably change in flavour. Can you imagine the backlash, no matter how healthy it is? That’s before we get to carbs in any other form or “natural” sugars.
I think a massive change from the very top (gov and nhs) down needs to acknowledge that sugars and excessive carbs are damaging unless you medically require them in specific circumstances, ie treat it as a medication almost for type 1. Educate and educate some more, using the same touch tactics as tobacco perhaps, the harm it causes. Restrictions in processed foods would need to be implemented with decreasing limits of hidden sugars (all types) and hidden carbs without artificial chemicals being added to replace them. Readily available but much more limited range of items labelled with big warnings they are ”high sugar” so type 1 and their circle can still access them but help deter others.
It would be hugely unpopular I think, especially in the early years before benefits were widely seen, and so highly unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. No government would do the about face on the post war doctrine, and lose votes by being seen to punish the people by taking away their sweeties! They prefer to “let them eat cake” to keep them happy(ier)
The best I hope for is the education part and a greater range of prepared but not processed real foods to answer the convience requirement. Maybe, eventually, that’ll work.
Who is recommending sugar to diabetics? I merely posed the opening post.
On natural resources. If we want to split hairs. So is coffee, cocoa, tea, tobacco. All natural resources.
Example : Coffee is a natural resource if you are talking about the coffee bean. If you are talking about the drink, it is not a natural resource.
Exactly. It’s the too much of it that is the key point. If it were or had been confined to smaller quantities in our diets, many of us wouldn’t be participating on this forum now.
I am rather certain that I was diabetic for a long time before the 'cholesterol lowering' diet pushed my weight up to who knows what - I stopped weighing myself at 264 lb. I ate low carb because that controlled my weight and I felt like myself when eating that way.
I do not make much distinction between sugars and starches - but it is easier to keep clear of sucrose and added sugars.
Does anyone remember reading about a berry which alters the perception of sweetness? - it was to be marketed, but the food industry scuppered it by getting the category it was in altered. As long as such things are done, there will be no way out of the over sweetened predicament the majority of the world seems to have been pushed into.
Question is, to what degree have we all been complicit in the over indulging of surgary and carby foods, in the past? Is it solely the fault of the suppliers?
I used to work for Allied Lyons - the food people.
I can only apologise, but yes, the sugar content of many dry good was pushed up to the maximum often by adding something which will counter the sweetness. Lemon was often added to sponge cake along with more sugar - thick layers of icing, too. I was often unable to try more than a tiny amount of a cake, but I used to set out the best of the days testing and people would come along and eat, pick up several to take home and then eat a couple more before leaving (eating out on the factory floor was not allowed) because they thought that was what the things should taste like.
You are setting up a straw man. That is not what I posted. Let’s leave it there.