The Fecking Naany State

[saintnextlifetime]

5 minutes ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Weather also plays a large part in what your body wants. Take the southern European diet compaird  to northern Europe.  The same goes for alcohol drinking.  

I think the superior diet in Southern Europe is probably down to the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables . I think your are right about long dark winters driving people to drink though. .

[Kemp]

That said, the thread title has put me in the mood for a Garlic Naan.

[Kemp]

Just now, saintnextlifetime said:

I think the superior diet in Southern Europe is probably down to the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables . I think your are right about long dark winters driving people to drink though. .

Plenty fresh fruit and vegetables available in the supermarket. Until Brexit anyway.

All northern populations drink, but the Scandinavians balance that with a lot sport and outdoor activity. If people want free treatment on the NHS they should be forced to start logging their levels of exercise. All easily done now. If you don't want to thats ok, you'll just need to pick up the tab at the hospital.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

2 minutes ago, saintnextlifetime said:

I think the superior diet in Southern Europe is probably down to the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables . I think your are right about long dark winters driving people to drink though. .

You will probably notice when it gets cold and wet the body wants food that helps keep the body warm a percentage of fat does that. In general we get poor quality fruit compaird to southern Europe unless you are willing to pay a premium price. Leading a healthy diet is not hard to do these days. We have put a vagan grounded none meat on the menu for chilli and spaghetti Bolognese.  It's very good the fact none vagan customers buy it tells it's own story. Tried a few Morrisons was by far the supriour which can be found in their frozen section. 

[saintnextlifetime]

1 minute ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

You will probably notice when it gets cold and wet the body wants food that helps keep the body warm a percentage of fat does that. In general we get poor quality fruit compaird to southern Europe unless you are willing to pay a premium price. Leading a healthy diet is not hard to do these days. We have put a vagan grounded none meat on the menu for chilli and spaghetti Bolognese.  It's very good the fact none vagan customers buy it tells it's own story. Tried a few Morrisons was by far the supriour which can be found in their frozen section. 

Yeah definitely the quality , the freshness and the lack of preservatives/pesticides will be a huge factor  in Southern European foods. Much of our fruit and veg in this country is ripened artificially , also the vitamin C content in fruit and veg begins to deplete on picking it from the tree. .

With the closure of the Whole Food market it is more difficult to get the quality you mention. .

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, saintnextlifetime said:

The body does not need sugar (sucrose) . The story that it does was probably pedalled by the sugar industry. Your body does convert most of your food to sugar for energy , so if you feed it straight sugar , the body doesn't know what to do with it ,it toxifes the body and turns to fat . It is also known now that sugar feeds cancer cells , another good reason not to take it. .

 

 

eta, the thing that addicts people to that sort of food is more often than not the high sugar content as sugar is proven to be more addictive than cocaine . .

There are many types of sugar. I didn't mention sucrose.

How the body reacts to sugar will be determined by the type of sugar you feed it.

For example, the body burns glucose directly as part of the Kreb's cycle.

I don't know what you mean by "toxifies the body" and I'm not sure why you think the body particularly targets sugar conversion to fat when it converts any foodstuff it can't immediately use into fat. I'm also not sure what you mean by "sugar feeds cancer cells" when all foods are eventually broken down into glucose and then essentially combusted within all cells to provide energy.

As for your last assertion, where did you read that sugar was more addictive than cocaine? It is hotly disputed as to whether sugar is addictive on its own nevermind comparison with drugs like cocaine.

Edited October 3, 2018 by oaksoft

[saintnextlifetime]

17 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

There are many types of sugar. I didn't mention sucrose.

How the body reacts to sugar will be determined by the type of sugar you feed it.

For example, the body burns glucose directly as part of the Kreb's cycle.

I don't know what you mean by "toxifies the body" and I'm not sure why you think the body particularly targets sugar conversion to fat when it converts any foodstuff it can't immediately use into fat. I'm also not sure what you mean by "sugar feeds cancer cells" when all foods are eventually broken down into glucose and then essentially combusted within all cells to provide energy.

As for your last assertion, where did you read that sugar was more addictive than cocaine? It is hotly disputed as to whether sugar is addictive on its own nevermind comparison with drugs like cocaine.

Correct , the body converts food into glucose which is a sugar , therefore it doesn't need to be fed sugar as it is designed to convert it.

Does it make you fat. .https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/4-ways-sugar-makes-you-fat#section3

Does sugar feed cancer cells https://beatcancer.org/blog-posts/5-reasons-cancer-and-sugar-are-best-friends/

 

Is sugar more addictive than coccaine , surely not ?  https://www.newhallhospital.co.uk/news/is-sugar-more-addictive-than-cocaine

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by saintnextlifetime

[stlucifer]

4 hours ago, oaksoft said:

It's easy to criticise governments but at the end of the day, they need to fund the NHS to pay for the unhealthy lifestyles people are leading in this country.

What we are doing to the NHS with our alcohol and junk food obsession is a nationwide act of self inflicted wounding. To then complain about the state of the NHS is simply scandalous.

I'll say right off that I don't agree with governments financially interfering with things they decide they should attack. Yes there are some who overindulge but blanket cover of the alcohol minimum pricing, for example, puts a disproportionate burden on the poorest who may just have had enough to cover the occasional drink. The excuse was, initially, that young people were able to buy strong, cheap cider and beer. So the Scottish government just hit every alcoholic beverage with the minimum price. Now, IF they were taking the revenue from this and feeding it back into the NHS or some other worthwhile cause, I'd have less of an issue but all they did was to give large chains an excuse to increase their profit and legitimately claim it's not their fault. IF someone wants to get drink, they'll get it. And it's a lose, lose situation as, if there is a decrease in alcohol sales, and that could be of a number of reasons including illegal, non regulated alcohol flooding the market even more than it was, then they'll herald it a success. If, however, the alcohol consumption remains roughly the same, they'll just claim the minimum price was set too low.

I  suspect the same will happen with sweets and chocolates. It could be that a family may rely on the "2 for 1" deals to allow them to give kids a treat now and then but, hey, don't worry about that. As long as you have the income to enjoy these treats, WGAF about others.

Nanny state? Worse than that they are effectively taxing without the benefits from that tax. Absolutely mental.

[St.Ricky]

5 hours ago, bazil85 said:

They're treating junk food and alcohol like smoking now. Absolute ridiculous approach that'll likely lose them the majority. Should be concentrating on bigger issues than telling people how to live their life. They'll be able to do hee haw for the good when they lose power! 

I'm not in favour of a Nanny State but if Government Policy can lead people towards a healthier lifestyle then, that I would applaud. 

Healthier... Means longer and more active lives.  Healthier.. Means less strain on the NHS and social services.  

Surely this makes sense? 

[DougJamie]

2 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

I'm not in favour of a Nanny State but if Government Policy can lead people towards a healthier lifestyle then, that I would applaud. 

Healthier... Means longer and more active lives.  Healthier.. Means less strain on the NHS and social services.  

Surely this makes sense? 

It makes sense. Ricky................ also if all the lazy parents would stop stuffing their kids with KFC , McDonalds and the rest, then not only would they be giving their kids a better start in life but also using healthier options like fish and veg that would actually help our economy  .................... I would tax fast food, make it £20 for a Big Mac

[St.Ricky]

15 minutes ago, DougJamie said:

It makes sense. Ricky................ also if all the lazy parents would stop stuffing their kids with KFC , McDonalds and the rest, then not only would they be giving their kids a better start in life but also using healthier options like fish and veg that would actually help our economy  .................... I would tax fast food, make it £20 for a Big Mac

I'm not a KFC or Big Mac guy myself.  I don't have a perfect diet but have managed to reduce my weight by over 3 stones and kept it stable by eating more sensibly.  No added salt,  no added sugar and much less bread.  My Cholesterol count is good,  my blood pressure is excellent but my hips are knackered! However, losing weight has helped me avoid surgery and saved the NHS a fair bit of money!  But.. The occasional treat of truly "sinful " food still crosses my lips.  Moderation and balance perhaps? 

Edited October 3, 2018 by St.Ricky

[DougJamie]

5 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

I'm not KFC or Big Mac guy myself.  I don't have a perfect diet but have managed to reduce my weight by over 3 stones and kept it stable by eating more sensibly.  No added salt,  no added sugar and much less bread.  My Cholesterol count is good,  my blood pressure is excellent but my hips are knackered! However, losing weight has helped me avoid surgery and saved the NHS a fair bit of money!  But.. The occasional treat of truly "sinful " food still crosses my lips.  Moderation and balance perhaps? 

Exactly- Your responsible and doing the best you can for the best quality of life. I have no sympathy for some who just abuse, and then we pick up the tab. They are not even feeding the economy just making US franchises more profits

Edited October 3, 2018 by DougJamie

[Cornwall_Saint]

I want a takeaway tonight now

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, saintnextlifetime said:

Correct , the body converts food into glucose which is a sugar , therefore it doesn't need to be fed sugar as it is designed to convert it.

Does it make you fat. .https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/4-ways-sugar-makes-you-fat#section3

Does sugar feed cancer cells https://beatcancer.org/blog-posts/5-reasons-cancer-and-sugar-are-best-friends/

 

Is sugar more addictive than coccaine , surely not ?  https://www.newhallhospital.co.uk/news/is-sugar-more-addictive-than-cocaine

 

Let's take that first sentence. The first half of your sentence is correct but then you spin off into a completely unwarranted conclusion backed up by nothing. An intake of raw glucose for example can allow an immediate hit of energy whereas other foodstuffs take longer to burn. A crucial difference for sportspeople for example or those who need an immediate hit of energy.

I thought I had made this clear before that I am not interested in getting my information from blogs, newsletters or anything similar because none of these places can be fully trusted.

For example, the assertion about sugar being more addictive than cocaine has been heavily criticised by researchers who claim the original team misread critical data from rat trials.

If you have peer reviewed research papers which describe any of the above I'd be happy to see it. There is no other credible source of information regarding scientific research. I know it's a pain in the arse but as a scientist, there is a very good reason for sticking to my guns over this. The world is full of crackpots who influence others by peddling absolute horseshit. I still don't know what you meant when you said sugar "toxifies the body" for example.

Edited October 3, 2018 by oaksoft

[FTOF]

1 hour ago, saintnextlifetime said:

Correct , the body converts food into glucose which is a sugar , therefore it doesn't need to be fed sugar as it is designed to convert it.

Does it make you fat. .https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/4-ways-sugar-makes-you-fat#section3

Does sugar feed cancer cells https://beatcancer.org/blog-posts/5-reasons-cancer-and-sugar-are-best-friends/

 

Is sugar more addictive than coccaine , surely not ?  https://www.newhallhospital.co.uk/news/is-sugar-more-addictive-than-cocaine

 

http://theconversation.com/its-eating-fat-that-makes-you-fat-new-mouse-study-suggests-101629

Also, not all components of food are converted to glucose.

The fatty acids in fat are broken down into a two carbon compound, rather than glucose. This means they enter aerobic respiration at the Krebs cycle stage as opposed to glycolysis (the break down of glucose).

Proteins are broken down into amino acids, which again enter the Krebs cycle directly, rather than being converted to glucose and entering glycolysis.

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by FTOF

[oaksoft]

5 minutes ago, FTOF said:

http://theconversation.com/its-eating-fat-that-makes-you-fat-new-mouse-study-suggests-101629

 

The site you are linking to provides a direct link to the actual peer reviewed research. See below.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413118303929?via%3Dihub

[FTOF]

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

The site you are linking to provides a direct link to the actual peer reviewed research. See below.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413118303929?via%3Dihub

I know.

Mine makes easier reading.

[saintnextlifetime]

10 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Let's take that first sentence. The first half of your sentence is correct but then you spin off into a completely unwarranted conclusion backed up by nothing. An intake of raw glucose for example can allow an immediate hit of energy whereas other foodstuffs take longer to burn. A crucial difference for sportspeople for example or those who need an immediate hit of energy.

I thought I had made this clear before that I am not interested in getting my information from blogs, newsletters or anything similar because none of these places can be fully trusted.

For example, the assertion about sugar being more addictive than cocaine has been heavily criticised by researchers who claim the original team misread critical data from rat trials.

If you have peer reviewed research papers which describe any of the above I'd be happy to see it. There is no other credible source of information regarding scientific research. I know it's a pain in the arse but as a scientist, there is a very good reason for sticking to my guns over this. The world is full of crackpots who influence others by peddling absolute horseshit. I still don't know what you meant when you said sugar "toxifies the body" for example.

Where did you read , the body needs sugar?

It is probably like all your other statements which are back up by nothing. .

As I also told you before , the whole story about fat making you fat rather than sugar , was sponsored research including bribes.

 

As I told you before , I'm not interested in some peer reviewed research that is like to be sponsored by some big business with a vested interest . .

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, stlucifer said:

I'll say right off that I don't agree with governments financially interfering with things they decide they should attack. Yes there are some who overindulge but blanket cover of the alcohol minimum pricing, for example, puts a disproportionate burden on the poorest who may just have had enough to cover the occasional drink. The excuse was, initially, that young people were able to buy strong, cheap cider and beer. So the Scottish government just hit every alcoholic beverage with the minimum price. Now, IF they were taking the revenue from this and feeding it back into the NHS or some other worthwhile cause, I'd have less of an issue but all they did was to give large chains an excuse to increase their profit and legitimately claim it's not their fault. IF someone wants to get drink, they'll get it. And it's a lose, lose situation as, if there is a decrease in alcohol sales, and that could be of a number of reasons including illegal, non regulated alcohol flooding the market even more than it was, then they'll herald it a success. If, however, the alcohol consumption remains roughly the same, they'll just claim the minimum price was set too low.

I  suspect the same will happen with sweets and chocolates. It could be that a family may rely on the "2 for 1" deals to allow them to give kids a treat now and then but, hey, don't worry about that. As long as you have the income to enjoy these treats, WGAF about others.

Nanny state? Worse than that they are effectively taxing without the benefits from that tax. Absolutely mental.

You are describing allowing poorer people to access cheap drink as though it's some kind of basic human right they are now being denied.

Alcohol abuse is not a problem limited to poorer people. I genuinely have no idea what your point is on this.

All classes of society are abusing it and the cost on the NHS is a huge problem. That's the length and breadth of it.

Not sure what poverty has to do with it.

[oaksoft]

2 minutes ago, FTOF said:

I know.

Mine makes easier reading.

I wouldn't disagree with that at all.

[oaksoft]

2 minutes ago, saintnextlifetime said:

Where did you read , the body needs sugar?

It is probably like all your other statements which are back up by nothing. .

As I also told you before , the whole story about fat making you fat rather than sugar , was sponsored research including bribes.

 

As I told you before , I'm not interested in some peer reviewed research that is like to be sponsored by some big business with a vested interest . .

Right, so you are basically a conspiracy theory crackpot.

Thanks. That's all I needed to know.

For anyone else, the link provided in FTOFs post shows where the funding came from at the end of the paper (as all peer reviewed papers are generally required to provide). If anyone can prove that any of those funding sources are linked to business then we can discuss.

[faraway saint]

Just now, oaksoft said:

Right, so you are basically a conspiracy theory crackpot.

Thanks. That's all I needed to know.

For anyone else, the link provided in FTOFs post shows where the funding came from at the end of the paper (as all peer reviewed papers are generally required to provide). If anyone can prove that any of those funding sources are linked to business then we can discuss.

I'm very disappointed it took you this long to come to that conclusion. 

[oaksoft]

Just now, faraway saint said:

I'm very disappointed it took you this long to come to that conclusion. 

f**king annoyed at wasting my time to be honest.

Science is one of the most bitterly competitive "industries" there are. The slightest whiff of a problem of bullshitting or academic fraud and every competitor would flush you out overnight to destroy your career.  You can't get two scientists to agree on the colour of shite and you've not heard a serious argument break out with personal attacks etc until you've been at a conference where someone presents something controversial and yet these f**king nuggets would have everyone believe that scientists work together in a massive global conspiracy to mislead the public? Sheesh!

[smcc]

27 minutes ago, FTOF said:

http://theconversation.com/its-eating-fat-that-makes-you-fat-new-mouse-study-suggests-101629

 

But

"Research is beginning to show that your genetic makeup – not diet – is the driving force behind cholesterol levels, says cardiologist Steven Nissen, MD.

The body creates cholesterol in amounts much larger than what you can eat, Dr. Nissen says. So avoiding foods that are high in cholesterol won’t affect your blood cholesterol levels very much.

“About 85 percent of the cholesterol in the circulation is manufactured by the body in the liver,” he says. “It isn’t coming directly from the cholesterol that you eat.”

This, of course, refers only to the atherogenic effect of ingested cholesterol-rich foods. In terms of weight the important factor is energy in v. energy out. The sad truth is that most people in Scotland eat far more than they need; you only need to look around the streets to see that.

Edited October 3, 2018 by smcc

[saintnextlifetime]

6 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

f**king annoyed at wasting my time to be honest.

Science is one of the most bitterly competitive "industries" there are. The slightest whiff of a problem of bullshitting or academic fraud and every competitor would flush you out overnight to destroy your career.  You can't get two scientists to agree on the colour of shite and you've not heard a serious argument break out with personal attacks etc until you've been at a conference where someone presents something controversial and yet these f**king nuggets would have everyone believe that scientists work together in a massive global conspiracy to mislead the public? Sheesh!

A typical pompous response from you where you simply don't answer the question.

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html