Fuck off wankstains

David Cameron is under mounting pressure to introduce a sugar tax as the Commons health select committee calls for a 20 per cent levy, and a ban on advertising junk food during family TV shows.
The report from MPs comes as a coalition of almost 20 charities and medical royal colleges called for the introduction of a tax, as part of efforts to combat Britain’s obesity crisis.

The obesity crisis is caused by more calories going in than are being used, nothing else. Sugar consumption in the UK has declined in recent decades. Calorie consumption in the UK has declined in recent decades.

The problem is that energy expenditure has declined more in recent decades. The most likely culprit is actually widespread and effective central heating. Given that, being mammals, our greatest energy expenditure is in regulating body temperature.

Sadly, the obvious truth of all of this doesn’t stop those who take pleasure in regulating the lives of others. Truly, I say to you, there are some who were better left as stains on their mother’s sheets.

41 thoughts on “Fuck off wankstains”

  1. It’s going to be fun watching them try to define “junk food”. McDonald’s pre-empted this years ago by selling salads. As Ian B implies, this is an attempt by the Middle Classes to stop the Lower Classes eating in a manner of which they disapprove.

  2. Tim – you are not correct on this. Sugar has a completely different hormonal effect on the body compared to other calorie in take (primarily massive insulin production which accumulates body fat). Please read up in it before repeating and perpetuating the incorrect conventional wisdom that it is simply calories in vs calories out. The type of calories eaten matters much more.

    Whilst I think sugar is an evil food, nevertheless I would never support a tax or ban as people can make their own choices. But you clearly demonstrate that the general level of education in this topic is too poor for them to do so. Perhaps at least the discussion of this tax will make people more informed.

  3. “Tim – you are not correct on this. Sugar has a completely different hormonal effect on the body compared to other calorie in take (primarily massive insulin production which accumulates body fat). Please read up in it before repeating and perpetuating the incorrect conventional wisdom that it is simply calories in vs calories out. The type of calories eaten matters much more.”

    Sorry, this is simply incorrect. The calorie content is far more important than the type of calories. Nor is it ‘conventional wisdom’, it’s what the science and all the empirical data shows too. Provided someone is consuming the correct number of calories, they will lose weight regardless of the source. Sugar may have an effect on promoting excess consumption, but that doesn’t change the energy balance.

    “Whilst I think sugar is an evil food”

    Only a food assigns morals to a food.

  4. Err, you missed the bit about sugar consumption going down? Meaning that it cannot be responsible for rising obesity rates?

  5. There is no greater demonstration of the fact that the cunts are winning than people feeling the need to anthropomorphise inanimate foodstuffs.

    ‘Evil Food’ ? Please get to fuck.

    And I’m really interested to read your theory on how humans are not subject to the 1st law of thermodynamics ? It’s very much all about calories. The insulin response is a determinant of how energy is stored, not of how humans process calories. You can lose weight (admittedly in an unhealthy way) by eating 1,500 calories of pure sugar per day, or by eating 1,500 calories of chicken breast. You’ll see different changes in your body composition depending on which diet you follow (because of the differing hormonal response to carbohydrate or protein), but I guarantee you’ll lose pretty much the same amount of weight.

    Sorry. It’s Monday morning, and I’m a little testy.

  6. “you missed the bit about sugar consumption going down? Meaning that it cannot be responsible for rising obesity rates?”

    Yes, this is quite important really.

    My paren’ts generation – n cups of tea a day, two sugars. Home made cakes baked on the weekend. Quite a lot of sugar really.

    As others have said, I will believe the puritans are sincere when camembert and coffee are villified as strongly as burgers and coke.

  7. Ricahrd:All carbos turn to sugar–that’s what the body runs on–what fucking discussion is possible on that?. Shall we decree a new physiology for mankind based on middle-class leftist pseudo-puritan snobbery and bullshit?

    Everybody involved in this bullshit needs to be beaten and then hanged from a lamppost.

  8. I remember reading George Orwell talking about the poor sods whose diet was “tea and two slices”, i.e. tea with milk and sugar and two slices of bread with margarine.

    Given that sugar and white bread are ‘evil’, they must have been as fat as fuck, but I can’t remember that bit. Maybe Orwell was in denial.

  9. Yer all wrong. There are different types of calories (different sources) but the differences are important to overall energy balance only in the very short term. and nutritionally in the long term. The only special thing about sugar compared to other calorie sources (and its “healthy” alternatives like all the starch (polymerised sugar) in wonderful wholegrain bread) is you can essentially eliminate it from your diet with no ill effect.

    The other special thing about sugar is that a calorie of sugar eaten is to all intents and purposes a calorie available to the body’s energy balance. This ain’t true with other nutrients. Food calorie counts are done basically by burning the food to ash and measuring the heat generated in combustion. Clearly the body doesn’t work that way (starting with absorption and then going through the whole enzymatic processes to extract energy), with the result that the “calorie” effect on the body’s energy balance from easily-absorbable and proecessable stuff like sugars is overstated compared to fats, starches, etc.

  10. BiG: “Food calorie counts are done basically by burning the food to ash and measuring the heat generated in combustion.”

    I did this when I was at school, and I was always puzzled by why scientists selected something that was so different as to how the body worked. Now I’m older, I get it, but cannot help wonder if the methodology has led to some distinctly wonky views on food. I remember the home ec teacher telling us that there were as many calories in a mars bar as a sunday dinner, and also wondering if the mars bar was just more flammable, and that skewed the data somewhat.

    Also- there’s a lot of holes in the logic above: forgive me, it was a hard weekend.

  11. Bloke in North Dorset

    “It’s going to be fun watching them try to define “junk food”. McDonald’s pre-empted this years ago by selling salads. As Ian B implies, this is an attempt by the Middle Classes to stop the Lower Classes eating in a manner of which they disapprove.”

    Yes, this is all part of the hatred of the likes of MacDonalds but as you say, they’ve got their at together and you can now eat a very health diet based just on MacDonalds and lose weight as this science teacher proved.

    http://www.niashanks.com/teacher-lost-weight-eating-mcdonalds/

    And the video is worth watching.

  12. Hate to start an argument, but the “calories in, calories out” argument doesn’t work, because the body is an active system with feedbacks, not a passive system with, um, without feedbacks.

    As a simple example, if the control mechanisms decide storing fat is a priority, they can reduce consumption by various other systems and reduce activity so that fat is stored on the same calorie intake, while increasing hormonal signals for more intake.

    I’m not saying that this is in favour of the sugar panic narrative. Just that as an active mechanism, it is entirely possible to be tired and hungry and putting on weight all at the same time. Sufficiently extreme intake restriction will eventually cause weight loss by starvation, but that’s when the homeostatic systems run out of tweaks, basically.

    So, not so simple is what I’m saying.

  13. Err, you missed the bit about sugar consumption going down? Meaning that it cannot be responsible for rising obesity rates?

    Tim, overall sugar consumption can decline, while rising in certain groups, such as young children. So you can’t conclude that readily that falling sugar consumption means that sugar consumption is not partly responsible for rising obesity.

  14. Tim, overall sugar consumption can decline, while rising in certain groups, such as young children. So you can’t conclude that readily that falling sugar consumption means that sugar consumption is not partly responsible for rising obesity.

    Of course, we can conclude from the fact obesity isn’t rising in young children that sugar consumption isn’t partly responsible for rising obesity in young children…

    However, an I were a sugar nutter, none of the decrease in consumption/decrease in activity arguments would faze me at all. To play advocatus diaboli for a moment:
    Yes, sugar consumption has gone down, but by your own admission so have people’s activity levels and need to generate body heat. To get the balance right it would help to get exercise levels up, but we also need to clamp down on the evil scourge of sugar, or 1 in 5 school children will continue to be overweight or obese; don’t you care about children?

  15. Talking of feedbacks and so on, in a couple of months I’ve basically lost 7 Kg, without any particular effort. This has been due to various ways in which my appetite has been suppressed, so I’m not taking in anywhere near 2000kCal.

    Previously, I would very easily go moderately hypoglycemic and get very irritable as a result. I also had that middle-class vice of wine consumption, which probably didn’t help with the “dad bod”.

    However, with the appetite suppressed by various mechanisms, I’m eating far less than I was before, I’m not snacking, but yet my blood sugar has been higher than I would have expected and has been pretty well balanced. I’ve also been kind of picky with what I’ve wanted to eat – eggs have been higher up the list of priorities than they ever were before, and sometimes I get an urge for a little bit of chocolate after dinner.

    But the feedbacks and hormonal reactions make me feel fuller on a smaller amount of food, and make me desirous of different foods than before (typically more protein/fat and less carbs).

    Just thought I’d share that, FWIW.

  16. @abacab,

    Presumably you are diabetic to be monitoring your blood sugar, which means you can lose weight pretty much at will (albeit in a dangerous and unpleasant manner).

  17. (typically more protein/fat and less carbs) – abacab

    Yup tend to agree. The few studies that I looked at that were linked to, don’t go back far enough IMHO though, fructose intake has definitely increased from 1900 through to now.

    By the same token though, we all respond differently to much the same diet so what works for one won’t work for another.

    Of course the temperature of the surroundings we’re in has an impact (Ian Thorpe allegedly consumed about 12,000 calories a day while swimming), but you can’t really override the hormonal urge to eat more that being in a cold environment will cause (hence Thorpe consuming 12,000 and not 3,000). Ray Cronise(sp?) has done something on this – the brown fat thing.

    You can’t really do a study over 10 years for this kind of thing – most of those that seek to investigate the matter look back to the 1960s at least.

  18. There are two factors at work.

    The first is that carbs aren’t good for you, other than as a very small % of your calorific intake. Its not just pure sugar, its all carbs basically, as they all turn to sugar in the digestive process. So taxing sugary sweets and fizzy drinks will have no effect while people are still stuffing their faces with pizza and pasta and bread.

    The second is that we are far more sedentary than we used to be and live in far hotter environments than we used to, so our calorific requirements have dropped. Our forebears could eat bread by the bucket load and sweet tea because they lived in freezing cold houses and worked physically during the rest of the day. A working man was given 3000 calories by wartime rations, and would have been skinny on it. Give that to the average man today and he’ll have a gut in no time.

    So we need less food than we have ever done, and we have been advised for 40+ years to eat more carbs and less fats and protein. And guess what, we’re all fat, and getting diabetes. Well the ones who listened to the medical ‘profession’ are, some of use used our brains and worked out the truth years ago. Eat carbohydrate as sparingly as possible, avoid grains and processed carbs entirely, and eat as much meat and animal fat as you like. You’ll never need to buy bigger trousers again. You also won’t get diabetes.

    None of the above should be considered as supporting a ‘sugar tax’, I don’t, and think people should eat what the hell they like, and live with the consequences. I also think all medical folk should butt out of dietary advice entirely, as they have fucked it up royally for the last 40-50 years and if they had any shame they’d keep quiet now. They are personally responsible for the poor health and premature deaths of millions of people through their incorrect advice to eat more carbs and less saturated fat.

    One also has to wonder whether the advice to use vegetable oils over animal fats has resulted in the seemingly huge amounts of cancers that we see today. Its becoming increasingly apparent that heated vegetable oils are carcinogenic – IMO they should be eliminated from ones diet entirely.

  19. It’s going to be fun watching them try to define “junk food”. McDonald’s pre-empted this years ago by selling salads. As Ian B implies, this is an attempt by the Middle Classes to stop the Lower Classes eating in a manner of which they disapprove.

    This reminds me of a wonderful and inadvertent error in a fairly typical BBC online article a few years ago about ‘obesity’. It was the standard opportunity for public health, lefty pressure groups etc (the usual suspects) to state their case, with a single pantomime villain “industry spokesman” allowed a quote a the end. Nothing unusual there.

    No, the funny bit was the photograph used to illustrate the article. It was two or three stick-thin working class boys stood outside McDonalds (or KFC; something like that).

    It was a perfect illustration of their true motivations. Whoever wrote or edited that article saw this photograph and felt it a very good or perfect fit for the article. There wasn’t a fat person in it, let alone obese, but this didn’t register. It was the working class boys and McDonalds. Fear and hate.

  20. From jim
    “we are far more sedentary than we used to be and live in far hotter environments than we used to, ..”
    “So we need less food than we have ever done, and we have been advised for 40+ years to eat more carbs and less fats and protein.”
    “we’re all fat, and getting diabetes.”

    We, we ,we all… WTF is there this presumption we’re all the same? Maybe for middle-class desk jockies. Maybe for benefit claiming couch-bound blubber mountains.
    Back when i was working full time I was scoffing 6000+ calories a day & needing every single one of them. There’s a helluvalot of people doing the same. Why do we all have to be nigh on criminalised, because the weak willed can’t keep their paws off the bikkies?
    If you fat bastards can’t stop stuffing your faces, maybe you need an incentive. Being called FAT BASTARDS! at every opportunity might be a better one than being mollycoddled & sympathised with. Let’s hear it for some abuse & discrimination. Let’s have some double charging for overflowing on bus seats & less of slapping taxes on munchies.

  21. @KerlInDeutschland,

    No, not diabetic. They checked me for it loads of times as a kid cos I had blood sugar issues. It seems that if anything I probably produce too much insulin causing blood sugar dropouts.

    I find my current situation most interesting insofar as what foods I’m wanting to eat. Although right now my body wants chocolate 🙂

  22. “20 charities and medical royal colleges”

    Or, as some would say, “20 fake charities and medical trade unions”.

    Or perhaps “20 organisations made up largely of hectoring prodnoses and bullying do-gooders”

  23. It’s basically indefatigable puritan Graham MacGregor trying to get a new Quango set up with himself in charge.

  24. Taxing poor people to fund jobs for middle-class Progressives. You would think the left would have something to say about that.

  25. “It wants commercials for bacon, cheese and butter to be confined to late night television.”

    Aah, do you remember the heady days when, during the day, you could hear the joyous words “du vin, du pain, du Boursain” across the airwaves?

  26. I am a self confessed fat bloke. If I lost two or three stone I’d still be a fat bloke and most people probably wouldn’t notice – that’s the level of fatblokedness we’re dealing with. I say this because I may not necessarily be a dietary expert.

    Two things strike me as self evident though. Humans have had countless millenia to adjust to eating animal fats – vegetable oils, by contrast, have only been in Northern European diets for a generation or two. Therefore, I doubt we are sufficiently adapted to deal with them. Secondly, official advice on what is good or bad for you changes every day. Is a glass of wine a day healthy or dangerous? Is butter the spawn of the devil or far better for you than margarine? I don’t know the answer but I’m bloody certain that once some numb-nuts politician rules something good or bad, the rest of us will have the Devils own job convincing them that they are talking bollocks.

    The average politico would rather half the population shuffled off into an early grave than admit they’re wrong and reduce any tax on ‘unhealthy’ foods.

  27. So a group of charities want to keep farm subsidies ( including sugar beet and edible fat producers ) keep their cheap diesel, and keep the owners of said land exempt from business rates and inheritance tax. But increase the taxes for consumers who are typically the thicko poor, thus enhancing net transfers of wealth from poor to rich, from stupid to clever.

    That’s not very charitable.

  28. So Much For Subtlety

    Mr Pants – “I am a self confessed fat bloke. …. Secondly, official advice on what is good or bad for you changes every day. Is a glass of wine a day healthy or dangerous?”

    Nothing wrong with being a fat bloke. But if you are even slightly inclined to take the government’s advice seriously, go on the Aitken’s diet or better yet the Paleo diet.

    It is amazing how well it works and how easy it is. As has actually been known for some time. But the experts ….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *