Rant Squash.

[Moriath]

Why should the healthy ones pay their taxes for a substandard NHS that can't treat them properly because lazy fatties who can't keep their cavernous maws shut long enough to stop their ever expanding wastelines and sugar-filled bloodstream from causing them to fill up all the beds and soak up all the money for drugs?

I've no problem with fatties being happy - but they can fucking pay for it instead of sponging off people who have self-restraint.


Edit: Actually, maybe a massive sugar tax is the way to go? I hate unnecessarily taxing shit and I'm staunchly for freedom of choice. But doing nothing isn't working.

From a canadian study in 2010. Shows that being under weight had more deaths associated with it than the mobidly obese. And the overweight and obese actually had less mobidity than the normal.

Just because you choose to go with your rose tinted glasses.

Orpana H, Berthelot J-M, Kaplam M et al. “BMI and Mortality: Results From a National Longitudinal Study of Canadian Adults.” Obesity. (2010). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2009.191/full

And

“The prevailing notion that overweight increases morbidity and mortality, as compared to so-called normal weight, is in need of further specification.”

Lenz M, Richter T,Mühlhauser I, ‘The Morbidity and Mortality Associated With Overweight and Obesity in Adulthood A Systematic Review.’ Dtsch Arztebl Int. (2009).

 

[Trem]

I can't add anything to this because a chum who is a trillion times smarter than me has made my points.

I struggle to take a lot of stuff seriously when debating because the same people always seem to agree on the same stuff which doesn't sit well with me, yes me and @Raven for instance seem to have a lot in common and I haven't read anything by him that I overly disagree with. @DaGaffer comes across as very smart indeed and his posts for the majority of the time interest me massively but I can't agree with them 100% of the time like @Scouse does, I don't get that mate and you know I like you as well, hell, I like everyone here even @Gwadien who disagrees with me on *everything*.

How can you argue that sugar *is* dangerous but a man made relatively new chemical is *not* dangerous? I don't care about reports I want to know the difference to man kind in 100 or even 50 years time if sugar is removed completely and these chemicals are used instead, would you rather take that risk or carry on as we have been for centuries? Or would you like the information, consider the risks and then have the choice of whether you want sugar or a chemical?

I want sugar, I do plenty of other stuff that will kill me, sugar is bottom of that list trust me.

Edit - cigarettes were passed as safe once weren't they?

 

[Raven]

Cigarettes were deemed healthy at one point, "science" proved it too.

 

[Scouse]

@Trem, I don't agree with everything Gaff says - I often argue with him. He's a giant smelly cunt

What I'm saying is that sugar is bad for you in the quantities we consume it (true) and artificial sweetners aren't (because we consume such low quantities of them). And I've produced the evidence to back that up.

@Moriath - you're off-topic again. I'm not arguing that. Diabetes is sucking up £10bn of the NHS budget now and is projected to rise much higher. That's completely avoidable.

Bloke in the office has just been diagnosed with it. Can of coke and a big fuck off cookie a day. I don't know what else at home. He's lost a lot of weight but is still probably obese - but it's the sugar that has done it.

@Trem:

would you rather take that risk or carry on as we have been for centuries

The point is that we aren't carrying on like we have been for centuries. I can't remember where but I remember the quote that as of the year 2000 we, on average, eat about 120kilos of sugar a year. At the turn of the previous century we ate about 4 or 5 kilos. The rest came naturally in our food.

Sugar IS an additive. A chemical we add to food in massive quantities. The artificial flavourings we've made are an attempt to provide a healthier alternative whilst still allowing us to eat all the sweet shit that we now crave...


Edit: Quick google - 170 pounds of refined sugar / year versus 4 lbs of refined sugar. And sugary drinks are the main culprit by the looks of it...

 

[Moriath]

Cigarettes were deemed healthy at one point, "science" proved it too.

Same with trans fats. Till they werent.

 

[Moriath]

@Trem, I don't agree with everything Gaff says - I often argue with him. He's a giant smelly cunt

What I'm saying is that sugar is bad for you in the quantities we consume it (true) and artificial sweetners aren't (because we consume such low quantities of them). And I've produced the evidence to back that up.

@Moriath - you're off-topic again. I'm not arguing that. Diabetes is sucking up £10bn of the NHS budget now and is projected to rise much higher. That's completely avoidable.

Bloke in the office has just been diagnosed with it. Can of coke and a big fuck off cookie a day. I don't know what else at home. He's lost a lot of weight but is still probably obese - but it's the sugar that has done it.

@Trem:
The point is that we aren't carrying on like we have been for centuries. I can't remember where but I remember the quote that as of the year 2000 we, on average, eat about 120kilos of sugar a year. At the turn of the previous century we ate about 4 or 5 kilos. The rest came naturally in our food.

Sugar IS an additive. A chemical we add to food in massive quantities. The artificial flavourings we've made are an attempt to provide a healthier alternative whilst still allowing us to eat all the sweet shit that we now crave...


Edit: Quick google - 170 pounds of refined sugar / year versus 4 lbs of refined sugar. And sugary drinks are the main culprit by the looks of it...

You were saying fat = bad. I was saying its not always the case. And that your reasoning was floored.

Because i said that you deem what i say is off topic.

Diabeties is crap and yes our food contains too much sugar if you want to live to be 150 etcetc.

As giles coren said "if having a drink takes 10 years off my life and a fatty burger another ten. Me dying at eighty. I can live with that" sic. But it was words to that effect.

 

[Scouse]

Same with trans fats. Till they werent.

Science in operation. It's well known that it can be subverted - but then that's fraudulent science. The smoking research was paid for by big tobacco and the "science" was designed to produce an outcome. But over time the real science got done and the evidence is now incontrovertable.

Same with trans fats. Science over time. Same with sweetners. Science over time.

You were saying fat = bad.

You did this to @Gwadien recently - you missed the context of the conversation. I would accuse you of cherry-picking but I'm pretty sure you do it accidentally.

The context of the conversation is sugar. I used the term "fatties" loosely.

 

[Moriath]

Science in operation. It's well known that it can be subverted - but then that's fraudulent science. The smoking research was paid for by big tobacco and the "science" was designed to produce an outcome. But over time the real science got done and the evidence is now incontrovertable.

Same with trans fats. Science over time. Same with sweetners. Science over time.




You did this to @Gwadien recently - you missed the context of the conversation. I would accuse you of cherry-picking but I'm pretty sure you do it accidentally.

The context of the conversation is sugar. I used the term "fatties" loosely.

So science over time might conclude that sweetners are bad for us.

I had read that because the brain is expecting a sugar hit with the sweetner it doesnt get it so therefore starts to crave other foods straight after to get the hit it thought it was going to get. Making the zero calorie sodas a bad thing too

 

[Scouse]

So science over time might conclude that sweetners are bad for us.

They've been around an *awfully* long time. They're not new inventions. But never say never.

I also read about the brain's expectations but that's a whole other argument. Addiction to sugary taste and the physiological changes in the body in preparation for digestion brought on by ingestion of sugar or sweetners. But that's a theory in relative infancy.


However, it does make my personal choice feel sensible to me. I don't drink sugary drinks, I stopped putting it in my tea, I don't cook with it often and I don't drink artificially sweetened sugary drinks. I agree - if I have refined sugar I tend to crave more of it. So I just avoid it as much as is reasonable in the first place.

 

[DaGaffer]

You're such a condescending prick @DaGaffer so much so that I'm at the point that I would have rather seen you and/or @Scouse fucking off than @old.Tohtori, yes that's right I'd rather that Toht was spouting nonsense everywhere than read more of your bullshit.

Once again it's not about using the internet for research, it's about not reading stuff and then presenting it as the source of all truth on a subject. It's been put even better below:

Thank you @leggy for restoring my faith in some of the membership here.

So just to be clear, you don't want me to send out my Flying Monkey research team? Well fuck, I don't what you want, other than a giant digger to remove all that sand in your vagina.

 

[DaGaffer]

Let me provide a smaller example. I'm an engineer and I'm forced to subcontract a lot of manufacture and construction as I can't physically do it myself. On a daily basis, I study designs and critique EVERYTHING that comes my way. If I didn't, I couldn't be confident that the final product wouldn't explode/fall down/cause an earthquake.

Does this make me lazy because I didn't do the designs myself? No, it makes me fucking good at my job.

Burden of proof: job (people may die)≠ some internet forum (people may get sandy vaginas)

 

[leggy]

@Scouse I don't know where to start. I don't particularly care about the study, the 'truth' it presents or otherwise. I already know the truth. I don't need another study to contradict me or back me up. I'm not here to debate the danger or otherwise. I just think that if you're smart enough (I know you are) to find the evidence. At least read it and assure yourself that it's sound before presenting it as an argument.

The abstract isn't for me as I have no intention of giving a shit.

My point was that understanding the methodology is important. It's not lazy and it doesn't matter if I'm paid to do it or not.

 

[leggy]

Burden of proof: job (people may die)≠ some internet forum (people may get sandy vaginas)

All this talk of sandy vaginas makes me miss my ex*

*not the truth if my current girlfriend is reading this*

*which she probably is*

*if she exists

 

[DaGaffer]

@Scouse I don't know where to start. I don't particularly care about the study, the 'truth' it presents or otherwise. I already know the truth. I don't need another study to contradict me or back me up. I'm not here to debate the danger or otherwise. I just think that if you're smart enough (I know you are) to find the evidence. At least read it and assure yourself that it's sound before presenting it as an argument.

The abstract isn't for me as I have no intention of giving a shit.

My point was that understanding the methodology is important. It's not lazy and it doesn't matter if I'm paid to do it or not.

Wikipedia says aspartame will fuck you up if you drink more than 21 cans of diet coke a day. I think there will be many, many other reasons why you'd be fucked if you were drinking 21 cans of diet coke a day, but personally that would put aspartame in the "safe enough not to worry too much" category.

 

[leggy]

@Scouse - also I'm not sure I got any more shouty than usual. I'm scottish. It's hard to adjust to any other volume than 'FUCK CUNT SHAGWANK'.

 

[Scouse]

@leggy - I was just looking for a rebuff - no worries. I still stand by the abstract being all we're qualified to understand fully. It's a respectable source - and you can't expect people on freddyshouse to read 250 page documents from cover to cover before they post them. It's unreasonable and unrealistic (for a start the thread would probably be five pages on by then).

This is what the expert-written abstract is exactly for. And it wasn't presented as defacto truth. It was presented as evidence in support of an argument. Evidence that nobody has yet rebuffed with alternative evidence.

If you don't want to do that then fine. But I stand by my position until someone can show me convincingly that I'm wrong - then I'll change it.

 

[leggy]

Wikipedia says aspartame will fuck you up if you drink more than 21 cans of diet coke a day. I think there will be many, many other reasons why you'd be fucked if you were drinking 21 cans of diet coke a day, but personally that would put aspartame in the "safe enough not to worry too much" category.

Wikipedia's article on Dundee has a particularly suspicious ommission under 'Sports and Recreation'. No where is there mention of Smack, Violenct Assault or Buckfast. I'm not sure I can take any article on that site seriously.

Point taken though. I may or may not have been drinking 21 cans of diet coke a day to cancel out the amount of fried mars bars I was eating.

 

[leggy]

@leggy
If you don't want to do that then fine. But I stand by my position until someone can show me convincingly that I'm wrong - then I'll change it.

I can't rebuff with my own 'evidence' (it's not evidence) as I can't make you feel how I feel when I drink or eat anything with Aspartame. The problem with this debate is this:

1) lots of research in support of it - mostly because it's revolutionised the food industry and we're all able to consume processed foods with slightly fewer calories.
2) lots of internet bunkum telling us it'll 'OMGZ Tumours'

If I ever have kids I'll keep them away from it (and sugar) and my argument will be the same as it has been for generations: 'Because I fucking say so... ok?... now go to bed and smoke somewhere else so I won't know about it'

 

[Scouse]

I can't rebuff with my own 'evidence' (it's not evidence) as I can't make you feel how I feel when I drink or eat anything with Aspartame.

I don't suppose you've read the abstract. The main link says this:

However, the panel said the ADI did not apply to people with phenylketonuria (PKU) – a rare genetic disorder where the body cannot break down phenylalanine. People who have this condition need to closely monitor their phenylalanine intake.

Maybe you've got that? You rare pigeon you. It would explain all of Scotland, tbh.

 

[leggy]

Yeah I read that but I'm assuming I can't have anything I can't pronounce. That's why I can have sex without a condom as there's no risk of Aquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome for me!!!!

But yeah I'm aware of that condition but don't have it

 

[Raven]

I can't drink it either because it makes everything taste like goat piss.

 

[dysfunction]

Britvic have removed the sugar from all their squash drinks. So none of their products will contain sugar.

It's not just a Stoke thing.

My guess is other brands have followed suit.

 

[Moriath]

Britvic have removed the sugar from all their squash drinks. So none of their products will contain sugar.

It's not just a Stoke thing.

My guess is other brands have followed suit.

Is it added sugar. Or all sugar. Cause theres a difference between not adding sugar but keeping it in if its come from the fruit etc.

 

[DaGaffer]

Is it added sugar. Or all sugar. Cause theres a difference between not adding sugar but keeping it in if its come from the fruit etc.

I thought that, but then my Flying Monkeys reported that all the "no added sugar" bottles of squash in Sainsbury's only had 0.5mg of sugar per 100ml, which is barely anything.

 

[Scouse]

I thought that, but then my Flying Monkeys reported that all the "no added sugar" bottles of squash in Sainsbury's only had 0.5mg of sugar per 100ml, which is barely anything.

To be fair - you should have sent your flying monkeys out to see if there was any actual fruit in the fruit squash or whether that's all chemicals too.

#elephantintheroom

 

[DaGaffer]

To be fair - you should have sent your flying monkeys out to see if there was any actual fruit in the fruit squash or whether that's all chemicals too.

#elephantintheroom

Well it does say made with real fruit juice. My tin-foil hat didn't get hot or anything, so I believe it.

 

[Moriath]

Well it does say made with real fruit juice. My tin-foil hat didn't get hot or anything, so I believe it.

Would have thought no added meant there was still the fruit sugars in it.

 

[Scouse]

Well it does say made with real fruit juice. My tin-foil hat didn't get hot or anything, so I believe it.

In the same way that Strongbow is made with real apples.

Almost 30% of it I understand!

 

[DaGaffer]

Would have thought no added meant there was still the fruit sugars in it.

My assumption also. Imagine my disappointment when I couldn't mock people for being too stupid to realise that. Proper ruined my day.

 

[TdC]

@Gwadien who disagrees with me on *everything*.

G-Wad's going through puberty. It's a recurring thing to be dead set against everything when you're in that fase of life

Cigarettes were deemed healthy at one point

so was cocaine mate