• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Frank Hovis

Sugar - More or Less R4

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

That point about concrete Vs bottled water is excellent.

I see a parallel with the absolute obsession with how private cars are fuelled whilst ignoring that planes, ships, and particularly power stations burn oil and coal at a vastly increasing and unchecked rate.

Don't watch that watch this.

Still, good news about the Rover steering wheel, Lynn.

Interesting tale in Southampton where they’ve got air quality issues and they want to restrict diesel vehicles but the problem is actually cruise ships, which because there’s no onshore power hookup they have to run their engines to power the electrics in port. Mind-boggling considering all the blather about CO2 targets something like that’s not been sorted years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ina said:

During and after WW2 the weekly sugar ration was massive.   I think the obesity crisis is multi factorial and cannot just be pinned on sugar.   In the 1970s takeaways were fish and chips and the odd chinky.  Now they are everywhere.  How the hell do people afford Dominos?  £17 for a big pizza ffs.

Very interesting that even at the height of the war the weekly sugar ration for an individual was 8 oz (about 40 teaspoons)

I can t imagine eating half a pound of sugar a week though  there is a lot hidden in processed food now that was non existent in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Ina said:

During and after WW2 the weekly sugar ration was massive.   I think the obesity crisis is multi factorial and cannot just be pinned on sugar.   In the 1970s takeaways were fish and chips and the odd chinky.  Now they are everywhere.  How the hell do people afford Dominos?  £17 for a big pizza ffs.

Dominos always have special offers. I object to them at any cost as they are horrible pizzas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I see a parallel with the absolute obsession with how private cars are fuelled whilst ignoring that planes, ships, and particularly power stations burn oil and coal at a vastly increasing and unchecked rate.

Expansion of airports. Stand in Tesco's car park at Gatwick when the winds blowing in the right direction and it isn't car exhaust you smell it's aviation fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Poseidon said:

HFCS is chemically identical to sucrose(table sugar). 

Not saying sugars good for you though. 

But there is something causing obesity. Maybe different things in different cultures. I've notice some  Americans get obese in a different way to Brits. And it's not genetic as I've seen UK expats go the same heavy thighed narrow(ish) waist/upper body  fat after living in US for a while. 

Probably some hormonal thing. 

Kind of but not necessarily. HFCS is Fructose and Glucose in anything from a 50:50 ratio all the way up to a 90:10 ratio (roughly) depending on the requirements. Sucrose is Fructose and Glucose in a more or less uniform 50:50 ratio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SNACR said:

I'm still of the opinion that something else has compromised our ability to process sugar or regulate its levels in blood. In the seventies and eighties everyone lived on starchy fast carb shit from Bejams, and if hungry later a nice sugary jam sandwich in white bread, washed down with gallons of orange squash. Fizzy drinks were still pretty prevalent and even delivered to the door. There's some idea diets back then were all good honest wholesome fodder cooked up from scratch by housewives but I'm not sure that's true diets were pretty shit and although nutirionally sub-optimal didn't seem to cause the same issues we have now.

Overall I think reducing sugar consumption is no bad thing - although not if that means replacing them with shit like aspartame. Oddly I've always felt sugary sweets and things are more easily metabolised by kids, rather than adults, but that probably assumes they're running around outside all day.

Despite being brought up in an affluent household my abiding memories of winter are of being freezing cold and ravenously hungry the whole time as a child in the 70s and early 80s. Boarding school was even worse, you could see your breath everywhere you went, and food was precious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Kind of but not necessarily. HFCS is Fructose and Glucose in anything from a 50:50 ratio all the way up to a 90:10 ratio (roughly) depending on the requirements. Sucrose is Fructose and Glucose in a more or less uniform 50:50 ratio.

Did not know. Will research more maybe Dipsey has a point. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Despite being brought up in an affluent household my abiding memories of winter are of being freezing cold and ravenously hungry the whole time as a child in the 70s and early 80s. Boarding school was even worse, you could see your breath everywhere you went, and food was precious.

Same here, a big Victorian house, no central heating, Jack Frost painting the window panes, little food. Still had a great time and you were always moving..football in the hall etc. Never really got used to warm houses now...stat is on 15 degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Great Guy said:

It's just schoolboy physics...

Seemingly you can burn 400 calories an hour if you start shivering. 

You could be watching telly in a cold room drinking ice cold water and you're burning more energy than being down the gym...

imho, the body was designed to be cold a lot of the time. People nowadays just don't get cold.

It so simple. Food does three things, it enables growth, doing work and maintenance, and if you include doing work in maintenance then, once we reach 18 and the growth element reaches a plateau, all we need food for is maintenance (cellular repair and work). The less calories we expend doing the work part, and that includes keeping warm, the less food we need. My best exercise is swimming in the cold sea for 30 minutes and wearing a t-shrt and shorts even when the house temperature is ~12C.

My amusement is watching farmers get bigger over the last 30+ years. When I worked on a dairy farm in the late 80s I'd get up at 5.00 am and eat the compulsory wedge of rich fruit cake and drink a mug of full fat milk before leaving the back door (compulsory because the farmer maintained it was better to throw up cake if you were met by a bad smell than retch on an empty stomach), must have been about 300 cals. Get the cows in, walk probably a mile in the process of both that and shiftng the electric fence. Milk 100 cows. Go in for a full cooked greasy breakfast at 10.00, couple of sausages, beans, potatoes, several rashers of bacon, couple of eggs, tomatoes, mushrooms, toast and marmalade. Must have been about 1200 cals. Back out to work at 11.00. Back in at 1.30 for a full roast dinner and sponge pudding and custard. Must have been another 1200 cals. Back out at 14.30. Back in at 17.00 for tea, which was a cold roast meat salad and trifle, probably 800 cals. Back out to milk 100 cows and walk a mile. Back in at 21.30 for supper which was always a cheese ploughmans, probably 500 cals. Then off to the pub at 10.30 for a couple of pints 500 cals. That was 7 days a week (no pub on a Sunday). (For all that work I got board and lodging and £20 in my pocket a week.)

So about 4500 cals a day and I reckon it could have been more. Never put weight on.

But everything was manual, all bales shifted by hand, all shit shoveled by hand, everywhere was walked.

Now, nothing is by hand and quad bikes are ridden everywhere. The eating hasn't changed. Farmers have got bigger.

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Poseidon said:

Did not know. Will research more maybe Dipsey has a point. 

 

It's processed by the body differently to sugar. There was a series on the So-Called BBC a few years ago called The Men who made us Fat, one episode was on this rubbish and the lobbying of the corn industry, it's worth watching.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

Crossing with many other threads I also think that it is a problem that will cure itself when we hit a permanent energy crisis in the 2030s when Saudi oil starts to splutter and die.

High energy prices mean expensive food, poorer paid workers can't afford to run cars, heating will be used minimally.

The result of all of that will mean that obesity returns to being the disease of the wealthy.

Like many problems it will cure itself.  When a takeaway meal costs £40 rather than £10 and wages and benefits have barely risen there will be no need to lecture people about eating less as they won't have the choice.

That's what we are heading towards and as the global population grows, the impact of the energy crisis will negatively impact on an ever bigger number of people.

People moan about energy costs but its actually very cheap. Many of us may remember huddling round a one bar electric fire and the lights going out and having to put another 50p in the meter.

I think many (maybe most) people just don't understand the impact cheap fossil fuels have had on our way of life.

Without it most of us would still be working the land and the population would only be a fraction of what it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, null; said:

That's what we are heading towards and as the global population grows, the impact of the energy crisis will negatively impact on an ever bigger number of people.

People moan about energy costs but its actually very cheap. Many of us may remember huddling round a one bar electric fire and the lights going out and having to put another 50p in the meter.

I think many (maybe most) people just don't understand the impact cheap fossil fuels have had on our way of life.

Without it most of us would still be working the land and the population would only be a fraction of what it is now.

I have said, on here and in RL, quite how incredibly cheap I find fuel.  That I can shift a heavy car, myself, passengers and luggage ten miles for one pound sterling I find incredible; that most of that pound is going in tax rather than buying the refined oil makes it almost unbelievable.  People look at me oddly when I say it though and mutter about paying £60 a tank.

Jeremy Clarkson used to mention on Top Gear how petrol was cheaper than both milk and bottled water.

People don't or won't see it. 

Mention shortages and price increases and they pop up with the idea that renewables will magically solve everything; whilst they certainly have their place they have many disadvantages over fossil fuels (storage, portability, chemical derivatives, dependency upon the sun shining or the wind blowing) and won't come close to filling the gap that the absence of cheap fossil fuels will leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone see the price of electricity recently?! I found out I was paying 16 pence per kWh and I thought I was being done. However that just seems to be the going rate at the minute.

It doesn't seem that long ago that it was 11 pence per kWh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Great Guy said:

Anyone see the price of electricity recently?! I found out I was paying 16 pence per kWh and I thought I was being done. However that just seems to be the going rate at the minute.

It doesn't seem that long ago that it was 11 pence per kWh.

The price of gas has gone up quite a bit over the last 12 months. There was a big spike last year but seems to be coming back down, but still above where it was a year ago. Gives an idea of how sensitive and vulnerable we are to gas prices.

Burning gas to generate electric is not the most efficient use, we should be using it for heating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Great Guy said:

Anyone see the price of electricity recently?! I found out I was paying 16 pence per kWh and I thought I was being done. However that just seems to be the going rate at the minute.

It doesn't seem that long ago that it was 11 pence per kWh.

I'm pricing in a 20% rise next year for my corporate budget; it looks like the era of cheap energy is coming to an end ten years' sooner than I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I'm pricing in a 20% rise next year for my corporate budget; it looks like the era of cheap energy is coming to an end ten years' sooner than I thought.

I'd imagine sterling going down in value hasn't helped...

It also looks like the government will have to throw money at nuclear generation as well. 

Anyone else look at the Gridwatch website? It shows in real time where the electricity in the U.K. Is coming from. On windy days you can see power coming from windmills :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Great Guy said:

I'd imagine sterling going down in value hasn't helped...

It also looks like the government will have to throw money at nuclear generation as well. 

Anyone else look at the Gridwatch website? It shows in real time where the electricity in the U.K. Is coming from. On windy days you can see power coming from windmills :)

 

Currently 31% from wind and 36% from gas.

As well as sterling going down, there was a time when the North Sea gave us all the gas we needed, but output peaked around 2000 and has been in decline since. The output figures are so bad that they now bury the data - that's when you know something is in trouble or a problem when they start to bury the data. A double whammy of declining output and a weaker pound.

Energy storage systems (mostly lithuim battery based) at both a domestic and industry scale will help smooth out the renewables but at the moment its pissing in the ocean, perhaps another five years before we see a meaningful impact. The increase in EVs will possibly also help smooth things out, especially if we see an increase in TOU tarrifs.

36 minutes ago, eight said:

Yep.

If it got really cold, we used to turn it on.

Oooh, thats good, really good. My favoritre post of the day, made me smile!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, null; said:

 

Currently 31% from wind and 36% from gas.

As well as sterling going down, there was a time when the North Sea gave us all the gas we needed, but output peaked around 2000 and has been in decline since. The output figures are so bad that they now bury the data - that's when you know something is in trouble or a problem when they start to bury the data. A double whammy of declining output and a weaker pound.

Energy storage systems (mostly lithuim battery based) at both a domestic and industry scale will help smooth out the renewables but at the moment its pissing in the ocean, perhaps another five years before we see a meaningful impact. The increase in EVs will possibly also help smooth things out, especially if we see an increase in TOU tarrifs.

I agree other than sharing your optimism for a step change in battery technology.

EVs have followed an accelerated development as compared to ICE engines, as a consequence of massive investment, but it has been steady refinement rather than leaps and bounds and that is down to their batteries.  I will probably end up buying one as my next but one car but that's primarily down to my having solar panels so free electricity to charge them during the day.  If I didn't have panels I doubt I would ever buy one; they are ludicrously pricey and their ranges and time to charge make them very inferior to basic ICE cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I agree other than sharing your optimism for a step change in battery technology.

EVs have followed an accelerated development as compared to ICE engines, as a consequence of massive investment, but it has been steady refinement rather than leaps and bounds and that is down to their batteries.  I will probably end up buying one as my next but one car but that's primarily down to my having solar panels so free electricity to charge them during the day.  If I didn't have panels I doubt I would ever buy one; they are ludicrously pricey and their ranges and time to charge make them very inferior to basic ICE cars.

Frank, I normally agree with just about anything you post but for this one I'm going to disagree. I'll explain why and I think in time you might change your views on this one.

Battery technology - there are two angles to this, much the same as we see with solar panels. It's not just about efficiency or storage density, it's as much about cost of production.

Putting aisde batteries, EVs are far superior to an ICE in so many ways. Efficiency, no exhaust emissions, full torque, less maintenance, low noise.

Batteries for EVs were always the weak point. Early Leafs with only around 60 miles range were pretty naff and the car was ugly as sin. But things have moved on. Take a look at the Hyundai Kona, the Kia Nero and the VW ID - and of course Tesla.

I'm confident that in 20 years time the majority of cars in the road will be EVs.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, null; said:

Frank, I normally agree with just about anything you post but for this one I'm going to disagree. I'll explain why and I think in time you might change your views on this one.

Battery technology - there are two angles to this, much the same as we see with solar panels. It's not just about efficiency or storage density, it's as much about cost of production.

Putting aisde batteries, EVs are far superior to an ICE in so many ways. Efficiency, no exhaust emissions, full torque, less maintenance, low noise.

Batteries for EVs were always the weak point. Early Leafs with only around 60 miles range were pretty naff and the car was ugly as sin. But things have moved on. Take a look at the Hyundai Kona, the Kia Nero and the VW ID - and of course Tesla.

I'm confident that in 20 years time the majority of cars in the road will be EVs.

 

 

Hopefully you are right @null; and I am wrong.  I have no in principle opposition to EVs and if I could buy one tomorrow for £20k with a 500 mile range then I would do so like a shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.