OT: Sugar

[Jim K]

charles

In article , Jim K -show quotedtext -that's another one on the "no, no" list ;-) -show quotedtext -

Twas typed tongue in cheek...:-)

Jim K

[whisky-dave]

The problem is that virtually any substance is poisonous if you ingest enough of it. I remmeber some toxicity rating that lists everything. The most poisonous and most expensive being botox at $1 billion a KG and people volenteer to have it injected into them and pay for it :-0

I'll stick to sugar and whisky although not mixed and I'd never add an "E" to my whisky. ;-)

[Huge]

Not that there's actually any evidence of any of that.

[Huge]

Complete garbage.

[Clive George]

Eat a chilli then tell me that tastes of nothing :-)

(fat itself tastes of nothing. However there's lots of tasty things which are carried in fat.)

[charles]

chillis don't taste of anything - they just burn.

[Tim Streater]

No thanks. That will f*ck up my digestion.

It is certainly the case that chicken breast (no fat), f'rinstance, generally has no more taste than a ball of string. Chicken legs etc, however (some fat, dunno (or care) how much), have taste.

[alan]

Salt just makes food taste different. Have a diet with a lot of salt and non-salty foods taste very strange. Have a diet with a limited amount of salt and a lot of processed foods will taste overly salty.

[Huge]

Jesus, the idiot count is well up today. Wonder if it's got anything to do with the CME?

[Bob Henson]

Were did you get that nonsense from? There are five tastes detectable by the tongue:-

Sweet - usually indicates energy rich nutrients Umami - the taste of amino acids (e.g. meat broth or aged cheese) Salty - allows modulating diet for electrolyte balance Sour - typically the taste of acids Bitter - allows sensing of diverse natural toxins

Any other flavours are detected by the nose.

[Nightjar]

You can probably already find an expert opinion that shows whatever you like about nutrition. My meaning was that the red top newspapers will have grabbed hold of a different opinion and will be highlighting that.

Very, very rarely do we need government intervention in new areas. It will be driven by what is likely to win votes and that, in turn, tends to be driven by what the red tops are plugging this week. Secondary smoking is an excellent example of that; the 'science' behind it is decidedly dubious. The ban on handguns is another example of needless legislation driven by media frenzy.

People can already read what the products they buy contain. What more do you expect the government to do? Reintroduce wartime rationing?

Colin Bignell

[Bod]

I have always had an excess of sugar. 3 heaped teaspoons in tea/coffee etc ever since I was about 5 yrs old. I am a chocoholic and a gannet for anything sweet. I was told I would get diabetes and all sorts of nasty things. Strange that a lot of people that I know who are frugal with their sugar intake have got diabetes and I haven't. I am fitter than most folk of my age and my weight is only about half a stone heavier than when I was 15. I am 65 now.

[harryagain]

Horrid when the fizz went out of it.

[harryagain]

Drip teacakes. Brown sauce sarnie. Good healthy stuff.

[Huge]

Anecdote != Data.

[harryagain]

Like the minimum price for alcohol. That soon disappeared.

[Bod]

Anecdote #2 :-) My wife is nearly as bad with sugar (2 heaped spoons) and yet despite half her family having diabetes, she has not...............yet.

[Huge]

I'm afraid the plural of anecdote still isn't data.

[Tim Streater]

Well it is, kind of, but statistics of 2 is hardly any better than statistics of 1.

[Bod]

My point being; that if excessive sugar is so deadly, how come us two have no derogatory affects from a lifetime of over indulgence of the stuff?