You aren't the only one thinking this about kids at the wall. My 9 year old needs to be on bed at 8 and asleep by 8:30 otherwise there would be no hope of him being awake enough for school. 9-11 hours is recommended for that age group. Always amazed talking to other parents how many other kids seem to go to bed at 9:30-10.
Most be you Brits. I remember a few weeks ago in Tenerife, no matter what time in the night you're out, there's always some Brits with their toddlers along.
Quote from: Wil on January 26, 2024, 12:28:05 pmI suspect if I were in a position to be sponsored, I doubt my morals would extend to saying no to generous, high-profile money from over-caffeinated sugary drink company. It sounds like athletes get a better deal from them than many places, including medical insurance, and scratching a living as a pro athlete must be hard enough. I do find it troubling how ubiquitous it is though.As a teacher I've seen the effect that sugar marketing has. Kids genuinely believe that drinking over-caffeinated sugary drink company will help them to concentrate in class and do better. These are often the same kids whose parents send them to school with no breakfast (which is worryingly common in some schools). I've had kids throw up on me because they've chugged 2 Lucozades for breakfast. One lad had 5 Mars bars for his lunch - he bounced off the walls for 10 minutes before I had to ask the TA to take him for a run around the building. He had no idea that this might be bad for him, and I had to talk him through what he should eat for lunch and why all that sugar had ended up with him misbehaving. He was 16, and somehow all of the healthy eating messages had passed him by, but he actually responded really well and started showing up with fruit instead.Agree with your first paragraph but there’s 0 evidence other than 1 study from the 70s which has pretty much been debunked showing that sugar causes hyperactivity in children…
I suspect if I were in a position to be sponsored, I doubt my morals would extend to saying no to generous, high-profile money from over-caffeinated sugary drink company. It sounds like athletes get a better deal from them than many places, including medical insurance, and scratching a living as a pro athlete must be hard enough. I do find it troubling how ubiquitous it is though.As a teacher I've seen the effect that sugar marketing has. Kids genuinely believe that drinking over-caffeinated sugary drink company will help them to concentrate in class and do better. These are often the same kids whose parents send them to school with no breakfast (which is worryingly common in some schools). I've had kids throw up on me because they've chugged 2 Lucozades for breakfast. One lad had 5 Mars bars for his lunch - he bounced off the walls for 10 minutes before I had to ask the TA to take him for a run around the building. He had no idea that this might be bad for him, and I had to talk him through what he should eat for lunch and why all that sugar had ended up with him misbehaving. He was 16, and somehow all of the healthy eating messages had passed him by, but he actually responded really well and started showing up with fruit instead.
Quote from: JamieG on January 25, 2024, 08:00:11 amI actually mostly agree with Dingdong’s comment. I just wanted to highlight just how bad too much processed sugar is. And how the behaviour of the sugar industry mirrors a lot of how cigarettes were/are marketed too. I think people still overlook it sometimes.'Too much', or 'excessive' amounts of anything are bad, literally by definition! Do you think that eating lots of sugar is bad because it isn't very satiating and therefore can more easily lead to over consumption of calories, or do you think sugar is bad independently of the calories it contains? If the former then I would tend to agree, but if the latter then I disagree because the balance of research doesn't support this claim.All carbohydrates break down into sugar in the body. "But it's the type of sugar and the rate at which blood sugar rises that matters" I hear you cry. The most demonised form of sugar, fructose, is actually low on the glycemic-index, so how does that add up? Whilst some animal studies have shown that supraphysiological doses of fructose could cause fatty liver and obesity independently of caloric intake, systematic reviews and meta analyses on actual sugar/fructose intake in humans demonstrate that it has no effect on bodyweight when exchanged for other non-sugar carbohydrates and calories remain equal. Here is one exmaple: https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492And what about exchanging sugar for dietary fat (e.g. Keto)? No difference in bodyweight or fat mass when sugar is substituted for dietary fat or protein under conditions of energy balance or in an energy deficit: ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18779274/ , https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/145/3/459/4743683 , https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3740086/ )Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown no effect from sugar on cardiovascular disease risk factors, glycemic control, blood lipids, etc when substituted for other carbohydrates: (https://www.cmaj.ca/content/cmaj/189/20/E711.full.pdf , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6247175/ , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5174149/ )I haven't seen any systematic reviews or meta-analyses showing sugar or fructose to be fattening independently of the calories they contain. Therefore, I don't think there's any issue with climbers putting on a R3d Bu11 hat and taking a salary considering that their audience will tend to watch what they eat to some extent (probably avoiding over consumption), and exercising (climbing) regularly. For the record, I think that most people should limit sugar intake because it can lead to over consumption of calories, but it doesn't need to be avoided. The last sentence probably aligns with your views as well?It's difficult to avoid the hysteria surrounding sugar because diet has become so tribal, and there's a lot of money to be made from selling books or Netflix documentaries. Keto zealots will shout about how bad carbs/sugar are, vegan zealots will shout about how bad meat is, fasting zealots will shout about autophagy, and so on... The truth is that all of these diets can be healthy and none are inherently good or bad. There are healthy populations in various regions around the world eating wildly different diets. One common denominator is that the current 'western diet' and lifestyle (I hate to use this phrase as it tends towards conspiracy) does seem to be uniquely unhealthy. However, sugar intake has actually dropped significantly over the last 20 years (including soft drinks) while obesity and type 2 diabetes have continued to increase (i'm getting bored of looking through my saved study references now, but it's out there if you're interested...). The cause is clearly not just one thing. Hyper-palatable processed foods (generally these have a mix of carbohydrate and dietary fat), more sedentary lifestyles, chronic stress, etc... By the way, I don't doubt that there are poor business practices from 'big sugar'.
I actually mostly agree with Dingdong’s comment. I just wanted to highlight just how bad too much processed sugar is. And how the behaviour of the sugar industry mirrors a lot of how cigarettes were/are marketed too. I think people still overlook it sometimes.
Quote from: cheque on January 26, 2024, 09:10:55 amClimbers don’t seem to be that affected by all the money R e d Bull pump into sponsorship do they? Has anyone else ever seen a climber drink one (or any fizzy pop for that matter) at the crag or wall?As a wall manager who sells that stuff: yes climbers drink it. We sell more over-caffeinated sugary drink company than Monster, but I think compared to the rest of society, a lot less at least. Here in Norway the market of energy drinks has outgrown the soda pops, but we sell almost as much water.
Climbers don’t seem to be that affected by all the money R e d Bull pump into sponsorship do they? Has anyone else ever seen a climber drink one (or any fizzy pop for that matter) at the crag or wall?
However, meanwhile in the real world sugar is just about the cheapest and most ubiquitous foodstuff you can find which makes it virtually impossible for anyone to keep anywhere near to the RDA. This is the problem, not that it's inherently bad for you. Thus, it is utterly routine for it to be consumed to excess by virtually everyone. Yes it's dropped recently, but from an extreme high.
I agree that hidden sugars in pre prepared foods is problematic but I disagree that it’s the cheapest way to eat. This statement has always baffled me.
Quote from: MischaHY on January 26, 2024, 11:21:53 pmI agree that hidden sugars in pre prepared foods is problematic but I disagree that it’s the cheapest way to eat. This statement has always baffled me. This is a whole other side topic re: costs of cooking from scratch vs a ready meal bunged in the microwave. Same goes for homemade sourdough bread vs the cheapest white sliced stuff. Once you factor in the luxury of the time it takes to prepare, oven/hob costs, and some pricey store cupboard flavourings that are usually taken for granted I’d be surprised if it still works out cheaper.
As far as ADHD is concerned, I'm not really comfortable with it being discussed slightly flippantly alongside this sort of thing, because it's vastly more nuanced that just uncontrolled / an excess of physical energy, and it gets quite frustrating when there's a sense it's being (unintentionally) trivialised. Part of the reason mine went undiagnosed for so long (and why I'm a bit tetchy about it) was because my hyperactive symptoms are largely unrelated to motor activity.
Quote from: Bradders on January 26, 2024, 09:26:36 pmHowever, meanwhile in the real world sugar is just about the cheapest and most ubiquitous foodstuff you can find which makes it virtually impossible for anyone to keep anywhere near to the RDA. This is the problem, not that it's inherently bad for you. Thus, it is utterly routine for it to be consumed to excess by virtually everyone. Yes it's dropped recently, but from an extreme high. Broadly agree with your thoughts but find this an odd statement. I personally make all food from scratch simply because this is the cheapest way. 1-2 fruits or vegetables per meal, some kind of carb and a protein source. Sourdough bread (the cheapest way to eat good bread ). I treat sugar similarly to alcohol in that it’s something I enjoy sometimes because food isn’t just about nutrition. I agree that hidden sugars in pre prepared foods is problematic but I disagree that it’s the cheapest way to eat. This statement has always baffled me.
I'm not sure if people intend it, but a lot of the "it's so cheap to cook healthy meals from scratch" chat could come from a Lee Anderson speech.The issue is not the cost of the food itself. It is time, paying the electricity and gas bills, having the necessary pots, pans and ingredients. It's enormously simplistic to just point to a cheap veg box from Aldi.
There are so many things in sdm's post that many could just not consider. I make that 4, possibly 5 different shops you go to to get your ingredients. What if you don't have the time, or a car to get there?
What if you haven't got a big freezer, or indeed a freezer at all?
Not to mention that you are clearly incredibly knowledgeable about food preparation and storage.
I'm privileged in a million different ways and I'm frequently too tired/have too many other things to do to cook as you do. Or, of course, I'm just lazy.