todays budget and protien powders
Users viewing topic: & 1 Guest
LOLOLOLOL! one of the funniest posts I have ever read on Sugden. Who can tell me how truthful the title of this thread is?
Mallone said:LOLOLOLOL! one of the funniest posts I have ever read on Sugden. Who can tell me how truthful the title of this thread is?
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortal...
that should keep you occupied for a while let us know what you make of it its not the clearest of documents as protein supplements seem to fall in a grey area
So, as we reported last night the budget of chancellor George Osborne announced today has produced a result the sports nutrition industry feared, namely they will be subject to a 20% tax. This puts the UK in line with many other EU countries where sales tax is assessed on protein powders.
To quote from the government’s own consultation document:
“The products affected exist pre-mixed in liquid form and also in powder form to be made up into a liquid by the consumer. They are often marketed as supplying energy to enhance performance, accelerating recovery after exercise, providing energy, or building bulk and often contain creatine.
Examples of products affected by the change include: sports nutrition drinks such as carbohydrate drinks, protein drinks, creatine drinks, work-out recovery products, whether or not in powder form.
Examples of products not affected by the change include: meal replacement drinks for slimmers and invalids.”
It is there, as clear as you could wish.
What this means is that protein powders, pre-workouts, weight gainers, post-workout shakes, and carbohydrate based products will all be charged 20% VAT from October 2012. The rider relating to meal replacements is interesting as it implies that possibly making serving sizes less could cause a different tax treatment. The tax treatment does not make much logical sense since it is not related to protein content but to the function intended for the product.
Although we can imagine some companies will start marketing protein powders as meal replacements to try to get around this impending change to the law, it is doubtful that the goverment would permit our industry to do this. More likely, specific named products, possibly those approved and authorised as slimming drinks will escape while the rest of the industry has to accomodate this tax rise.
To quote from the government’s own consultation document:
“The products affected exist pre-mixed in liquid form and also in powder form to be made up into a liquid by the consumer. They are often marketed as supplying energy to enhance performance, accelerating recovery after exercise, providing energy, or building bulk and often contain creatine.
Examples of products affected by the change include: sports nutrition drinks such as carbohydrate drinks, protein drinks, creatine drinks, work-out recovery products, whether or not in powder form.
Examples of products not affected by the change include: meal replacement drinks for slimmers and invalids.”
It is there, as clear as you could wish.
What this means is that protein powders, pre-workouts, weight gainers, post-workout shakes, and carbohydrate based products will all be charged 20% VAT from October 2012. The rider relating to meal replacements is interesting as it implies that possibly making serving sizes less could cause a different tax treatment. The tax treatment does not make much logical sense since it is not related to protein content but to the function intended for the product.
Although we can imagine some companies will start marketing protein powders as meal replacements to try to get around this impending change to the law, it is doubtful that the goverment would permit our industry to do this. More likely, specific named products, possibly those approved and authorised as slimming drinks will escape while the rest of the industry has to accomodate this tax rise.
You have provided a link to the HMRC which says doesn't say anything at all about the thread title, then quoted a consultation document that you have not provided a source/link for. Got a credible link?
Carb based sports drinks. I wonder what will happen to drinks like lucazade sport which is a 'fashoinable' carb drink
drew said:Carb based sports drinks. I wonder what will happen to drinks like lucazade sport which is a 'fashoinable' carb drink
lol as if that sugary water isnt expensive enough already
JohnC22/03/12 @ 23:16
brownbear said:
Either way, saying cavemen ate a certain way and they didn't suffer diabetes etc. is bo***cks cause they only lived until 35!
Either way, saying cavemen ate a certain way and they didn't suffer diabetes etc. is bo***cks cause they only lived until 35!
Is that true though?
I recall seeing somewhere that the average age is deceptive as the average is hugely affected by the number of babies and young children that failed to survive to adulthood. In other words plenty of cavemen made it to 70/80/90+ but many babies died which dragged the average down, whereas these days few babies die (thankfully).
Can't find the reference at the moment though....
Regards, John
slimsim22/03/12 @ 23:41
JohnC said:
Is that true though?
I recall seeing somewhere that the average age is deceptive as the average is hugely affected by the number of babies and young children that failed to survive to adulthood. In other words plenty of cavemen made it to 70/80/90+ but many babies died which dragged the average down, whereas these days few babies die (thankfully).
Can't find the reference at the moment though....
Regards, John
Is that true though?
I recall seeing somewhere that the average age is deceptive as the average is hugely affected by the number of babies and young children that failed to survive to adulthood. In other words plenty of cavemen made it to 70/80/90+ but many babies died which dragged the average down, whereas these days few babies die (thankfully).
Can't find the reference at the moment though....
Regards, John
70+!? I'd be amazed if this was the case. You only need to consider the number of conditions which would easily become life threatening if there was no antibiotics or vaccines. You can still look at third world countries these days and see that the average age of people is still often well under 50 even discounting child mortality.
Harry said:
You tax the rich and they find somewhere else to go. Thats what rich and powerful people do.
Without the rich, everyone suffers.
You tax the rich and they find somewhere else to go. Thats what rich and powerful people do.
Without the rich, everyone suffers.
They are not here that`s the proplem. If they were here then there would be no need for offshore bank acconts.
And the money they take would go back into the system but that`s not the case
Steve23/03/12 @ 07:47
slimsim said:
70+!? I'd be amazed if this was the case. You only need to consider the number of conditions which would easily become life threatening if there was no antibiotics or vaccines. You can still look at third world countries these days and see that the average age of people is still often well under 50 even discounting child mortality.
70+!? I'd be amazed if this was the case. You only need to consider the number of conditions which would easily become life threatening if there was no antibiotics or vaccines. You can still look at third world countries these days and see that the average age of people is still often well under 50 even discounting child mortality.
Do hird World populations eat the same way as "cavemen" used to or being sustained by modern, modified grains?
To get a meaningful idea of dietary effects on life expectancy you would need to factor out accidental deaths and deaths due to infectious diseases. A better comparison might be between "cavemen" and early grain eaters,
JohnC23/03/12 @ 07:57
Steve said:
Do hird World populations eat the same way as "cavemen" used to or being sustained by modern, modified grains?
Do hird World populations eat the same way as "cavemen" used to or being sustained by modern, modified grains?
Their lifestyle was very different too, probably more active than most of the population today etc.
Also the population then was considerably smaller and didn't travel as much as we do now so diseases etc. tended to be far more self limiting - i.e. wipes out the tribe and then can't spread because all the carriers are dead...
Mallone said:You have provided a link to the HMRC which says doesn't say anything at all about the thread title, then quoted a consultation document that you have not provided a source/link for. Got a credible link?
See my post earlier in the thread that quotes directly from the budget. Perhaps if you were that interested you would go and read the thing yourself? Oh yeah I forgot, you're not actually interested in anything other than stirring s**t, or more accurately, trying to stir s**t.
slimsim23/03/12 @ 11:24
Cuddles said:
See my post earlier in the thread that quotes directly from the budget. Perhaps if you were that interested you would go and read the thing yourself? Oh yeah I forgot, you're not actually interested in anything other than stirring s**t, or more accurately, trying to stir s**t.
See my post earlier in the thread that quotes directly from the budget. Perhaps if you were that interested you would go and read the thing yourself? Oh yeah I forgot, you're not actually interested in anything other than stirring s**t, or more accurately, trying to stir s**t.
I wouldn't mind, but the info was in the link provided, you just had to look for it under the relevant food category/section. I couldn't be bothered to tell him as he's a gobs**te!
Remember Cuddles, don't feed the trolls!
streak23/03/12 @ 13:50
Joni said:
so, conventional wisdom is s**te, but some random quack on the net is the authority?
This is the problem with people believing something they want to.
The most trustworthy people in terms of nutrition are official bodies with their very calm and level headed recommendations, who look at the studies with a long term holistic view, rather than selecting suitable small studies to support their own agenda.
The internet gurus are the worst: they need to stand out and say something different, and they rely on normal readers very poor understanding on how science in general, and nutritional science in particular, works. People are easy to fool with selective quoting and clever marketing language.
I would recommend readin this book to EVERYONE interested in these issues:
[IMG]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XNHAp4aJL._BO2,204,203...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X...
Why is it that every lowcarb proponent is a Quack?
Everybody knows that cutting out carbs is a fantastic way to lose FAT. Why is it such a controversial leap to think that it might improve your health as well?
Dan and his doctor can't explain why his cholesterol is high, given that his consumption of dietary cholesterol is low. The doctor then "lays the blame" at Dan's WHEY supplementation! That whole statement sounds so ridiculous on so many levels that it would be laughable if it wasn't related to someones health.
I could be wrong of course. Does anyone think Dan's doctor might be right? Do you?
so, conventional wisdom is s**te, but some random quack on the net is the authority?
This is the problem with people believing something they want to.
The most trustworthy people in terms of nutrition are official bodies with their very calm and level headed recommendations, who look at the studies with a long term holistic view, rather than selecting suitable small studies to support their own agenda.
The internet gurus are the worst: they need to stand out and say something different, and they rely on normal readers very poor understanding on how science in general, and nutritional science in particular, works. People are easy to fool with selective quoting and clever marketing language.
I would recommend readin this book to EVERYONE interested in these issues:
[IMG]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XNHAp4aJL._BO2,204,203...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X...
Why is it that every lowcarb proponent is a Quack?
Everybody knows that cutting out carbs is a fantastic way to lose FAT. Why is it such a controversial leap to think that it might improve your health as well?
Dan and his doctor can't explain why his cholesterol is high, given that his consumption of dietary cholesterol is low. The doctor then "lays the blame" at Dan's WHEY supplementation! That whole statement sounds so ridiculous on so many levels that it would be laughable if it wasn't related to someones health.
I could be wrong of course. Does anyone think Dan's doctor might be right? Do you?
ok, so one by one...
not every, just most.
Everybody knows that cutting out carbs is a fantastic way to lose FAT.
no, calorie deficit cuts fat. If cutting carbs leads to calorie deficit, it will cut fat, but "everybody knows" is a false statement, and about a false statement too.
Why is it such a controversial leap to think that it might improve your health as well?
thats a huge leap! And one which is not backed by anything other than self belief.
Dan and his doctor can't explain why his cholesterol is high, given that his consumption of dietary cholesterol is low.
he does take whey protein, thats one dietary source of cholesterol. Whey protein concentrate even more so. Dont know about other parts of his diet, so cant comment.
Issue is that dietary sources are in his control - so that is where he can focus on. Genetical factors he cant help, and of course he will have more of a predisposition because of his genetics, but those are out of his control.
If there is a dietary way of reducing his cholesterol levels, of course he will try it as a rational person. Would be pretty foolish not to.
The doctor then "lays the blame" at Dan's WHEY supplementation!
probably because it was the most obvious source of cholesterol - and totally futile anyway since he has a protein rich diet already.
That whole statement sounds so ridiculous on so many levels that it would be laughable if it wasn't related to someones health.
not sure which one is more laughable, that, or someone random on the internet laughing at the doctor about the quality of the advice, with very little information about the condition, diet, or even about dietary sources of cholesterol include whey protein...
I could be wrong of course. Does anyone think Dan's doctor might be right? Do you?
on the balance, i would choose the doctors advice, sorry...
But would also try to do some research on it myself, or get second opinion, or get a referral to a specialist.
But i would stay well clear of the numerous quacks on the internet who according to steve only do it for the goodness of their hearts, the fancy cars and millionare lifestyles are just an unfortunate byproduct of their hard voluntary work...
streak said:
Why is it that every lowcarb proponent is a Quack?
Why is it that every lowcarb proponent is a Quack?
not every, just most.
Everybody knows that cutting out carbs is a fantastic way to lose FAT.
no, calorie deficit cuts fat. If cutting carbs leads to calorie deficit, it will cut fat, but "everybody knows" is a false statement, and about a false statement too.
Why is it such a controversial leap to think that it might improve your health as well?
thats a huge leap! And one which is not backed by anything other than self belief.
Dan and his doctor can't explain why his cholesterol is high, given that his consumption of dietary cholesterol is low.
he does take whey protein, thats one dietary source of cholesterol. Whey protein concentrate even more so. Dont know about other parts of his diet, so cant comment.
Issue is that dietary sources are in his control - so that is where he can focus on. Genetical factors he cant help, and of course he will have more of a predisposition because of his genetics, but those are out of his control.
If there is a dietary way of reducing his cholesterol levels, of course he will try it as a rational person. Would be pretty foolish not to.
The doctor then "lays the blame" at Dan's WHEY supplementation!
probably because it was the most obvious source of cholesterol - and totally futile anyway since he has a protein rich diet already.
That whole statement sounds so ridiculous on so many levels that it would be laughable if it wasn't related to someones health.
not sure which one is more laughable, that, or someone random on the internet laughing at the doctor about the quality of the advice, with very little information about the condition, diet, or even about dietary sources of cholesterol include whey protein...
I could be wrong of course. Does anyone think Dan's doctor might be right? Do you?
on the balance, i would choose the doctors advice, sorry...
But would also try to do some research on it myself, or get second opinion, or get a referral to a specialist.
But i would stay well clear of the numerous quacks on the internet who according to steve only do it for the goodness of their hearts, the fancy cars and millionare lifestyles are just an unfortunate byproduct of their hard voluntary work...
© Sugden Barbell - Privacy