Notices
Results 1 to 84 of 84

Thread: why white sugar is bad

  1. #1 why white sugar is bad 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    anyone read book sugar blues?i wonder what the chemical makeup is of white sugar verses brown sugar or sugar in the in little packages or turbino sugar


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Brown sugar is simply white sugar with some molasses mixed in. Chemically, the sugar part is the same - it's all sucrose.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    comput s slo n m bsy buwish i cld find tht linki ad antoo to t offh computrskip nd wont type all te ltr i tpe ad i hve 2 megsf rm

    cant stn it ymore!!

    computer is slow n m bsy buwish i cld find tht linki ad antoo to t offh computr skips and wont type all the lettrs i tpye ad i hve 2 megsf rm

    cant stn it ymore!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    has anyone read this book sugar blues? all the histty in there and stuff is interesting

    questions like :when was sugar inrtrodeced to beer
    '?

    the slave trade was founded on sugar

    how is sugar made?

    hugh fructose is worse but ill leave that to another post

    on xp computer with less than a gig of ram and no vista i guess vista does suck
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    http://www.elitefiteducate.com/perso...hy-sugar-sucks

    76 reasons why sugar sucks!
    In addition to throwing off the body's homeostasis, excess sugar may result in a number of other significant consequences. The following is a listing of some of sugar's metabolic consequences from a variety of medical journals and other scientific publications.

    1. Sugar can suppress your immune system and impair your defenses against infectious disease.

    2. Sugar upsets the mineral relationships in your body: causes chromium and copper deficiencies and interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium.

    3. Sugar can cause can cause a rapid rise of adrenaline, hyperactivity, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and crankiness in children.

    4. Sugar can produce a significant rise in total cholesterol, triglycerides and bad cholesterol and a decrease in good cholesterol.

    5. Sugar causes a loss of tissue elasticity and function.

    6. Sugar feeds cancer cells and has been connected with the development of cancer of the breast, ovaries, prostate, rectum, pancreas, biliary tract, lung, gallbladder and stomach.

    7. Sugar can increase fasting levels of glucose and can cause reactive hypoglycemia.

    8. Sugar can weaken eyesight.

    9. Sugar can cause many problems with the gastrointestinal tract including: an acidic digestive tract, indigestion, malabsorption in patients with functional bowel disease, increased risk of Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis.

    10. Sugar can cause premature a
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by holmes
    4. Sugar can produce a significant rise in total cholesterol, triglycerides and bad cholesterol and a decrease in good cholesterol.
    Really? I wasn't aware there was cholesterol in sucrose.

    Quote Originally Posted by holmes
    7. Sugar can increase fasting levels of glucose
    Glucose is a sugar, so I'm not especially surprised. Sucrose (what we usually think of as sugar), is made of 50% glucose, so this is less surprising.

    Quote Originally Posted by holmes
    6. Sugar feeds cancer cells
    Yes, it does. It's also used to "feed" your body cells, as glucose is used for active transport and respiration.

    I think it's worth pointing out that starch, a major constituent of a 'healthy' diet, is made completely out of glucose; a sugar.


    Summary:

    Without sugars/carbohydrates, you would die in minutes. With sugar, you have a slightly increased risk of fatal illness.

    Which do you prefer?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    yuou didnt read the book above i mentioned here

    the book is on sucrose and doesnt condemn gluscose
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    yuou didnt read the book above i mentioned here

    the book is on sucrose and doesnt condemn gluscose
    Sucrose is made of glucose, and it's the glucose that causes the problems. The majority of the problems you have described are actually referring to the glucose, after sucrose has been broken down in the small intestine. You do have some valid points, including with regards to ADHD and so on, which are linked to the rate of glucose absorbtion, but a lot of the arguements you made against white sugar are simply not valid.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    turtle are you a scientist?what books have you read on this?

    the bible says "love not too much honey"

    sugar is 100 times worse
    it has no vitamins or minerals in fact ive read it depletes those

    it takes ,but doesn't give
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Yes, I frequently look to the bible as an authority on nutrition and science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    a banana that has the most sugar of any fruit will give much

    sugar white sugar gives nothing but subtracts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Yeah... I'll remember that the next time I'm having an insulin reaction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    yuou didnt read the book above i mentioned here

    the book is on sucrose and doesnt condemn gluscose
    If the guy who wrote this book that you're so excited about didn't make it clear that sucrose (white table sugar) is 50% glucose, then I'd have to say it sounds like a pretty terrible book about sugar.

    Your body NEEDS sugar. If you stopped eating sugar, your body would make sugar on its own from proteins etc. Like anything else, it's bad if you get too much of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Very pragmatic discussion here! The overwhelming support for all the various claims -- each presented more concisely than the last -- makes me question everything I once knew to be true.

    Holmes wins the "Sophist 1337 Award for Excellence in Portraying Academicians" For his role in bringing a third party source into the science discussion. Making the total count for this discussion on such a well studied topic 1, and the total count for this forum 17, were getting there folks!

    now on a serious note

    "By blending fructose and glucose together in various ratios, the corn wet-milling industry developed two types of HFCS: HFCS-55 (55% fructose) and HFCS-42 (42% fructose). Glucose and a minor amount of glucose polymer (from incomplete cornstarch hydrolysis) make up the difference in both product types. Small quantities of HFCS-90 (90% fructose) and crystalline fructose (+99.5%) are also produced by the industry for specialty applications." http://www.foodproductdesign.com/art...20091012064636

    Corn syrup, for those who don't know, is made from corn starch, which is mostly glucose. I'm not sure the processes used, but they turn some of the glucose into fructose, and if they need to, as described in the above quote, they mix the high fructose syrup with glucose syrup until the desired ratio is achieved.

    Table sugar is 50/50 glucose and fructose, so you can see that most corn syrup, being either 42 or 55 % there is not much more, and sometimes less fructose. Nonetheless, fructose is a different type of sugar. The only thing I have heard negative about it that sets it apart from other sugars, is that it's associated with memory problems when consumed in large amounts. I don't know specifics.

    Anyway, sugar is necissary, our bodies burn three things

    proteins: which are better put to use making new cells and as enzymes making those cells operate better.

    fats: which are calorie dense, making them ideal to store for when calories are sparse, such as between meals, while sleeping, and when too busy, or not able to eat. When stored fat serves as a "sink" for toxins and disease, making it a good idea to have a comfortable supply, depending on your environment.

    glucose: which is a monosaccharide("single sugar") that your body makes in multiple ways: from polysaccharides("multi-sugars") such as sucrose(fructose-glucose); or by converting other sugars into glucose through enzyme reactions such as when two molecules of lactose are made into one molecule of glucose, which is constantly going on in your liver. When you burn glucose, it is split into twice as much lactose, which is a toxic sugar. The lactose is sent to your liver which then converts it to glucose if needed, or sends it on down to be flushed away.


    of these three things glucose is the best energy source for every day activity such as breathing, chewing, walking, talking, and most of all thinking, not to mention any of the subconscious activities that are always going on as well. It is not the best because it is popular, it is the best because it is the most plentifull source of energy in the ecosystems that we have evolved from. It is the best for us, because it has made us who we are, foragers, farmers, etc. Meat is amazing, but we can't live on meat alone, in fact most of our vital nutrients come from plant sources, which is also where all of our sugars come from.

    There is more to nutrition than "this is bad, this is good" there is also cause and effect to take into account, lifestyle/cultural and ancestral/genetic peculiarities to take into account.

    Athletes for a long time have had specialized athletic-dieticians, but athletes are not the only people who need specialized diets. A computer programer needs special focus too, to be the best computer programer she can be, she will need good eyes, good hand eye coordination, good abstract thinking, organization, math skills, etc, which are all very taxing on the nerves. Obviously she is not the most active person at work, so she will not need massive amounts of calories to keep her going. She will need to maintain her focus, which is enough for most to go and grab a bunch of caffien and sugar, even though these things in common volumes will harm your nervous system and make you worse of a programmer vs things like b vitamins, electrolytes, and quick exersize breaks to keep your focus.

    I could go on and on... but I'm sure only a fraction of you will have read this far... thanks, but keep in mind I'm not an expert in the field, and I may be misinformed on some of these topics. If you are interested look it up, if you don't believe something, ask me to support it, if you think I'm wrong, tell me why. I am interested, and I do as much research on nutrition as possible, and I want to know more, so I'm not afraid of being told I'm wrong, but please help me along if you know something that I don't.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    38
    I think an important element left out of the conversation thus far is the role of fiber. Soluble fiber comes from whole grains. It has known benefits for heart health in part by its role in regulating LDL cholesterol. The reason the argument can be made against table sugar, or any sugar for that matter, (as I'm sure the author of the book in question intended on making even if he did so horribly: although I did not/will not read the book simply because I have other topics I know less about which I'd like to learn) is simply because the majority of individuals eat an inordinate amount of sugar relative to fiber in their diet. This results in the well understood blood sugar crash described in terms of a glycemic index. Without soluble fiber, your pancreas reacts to the glucose insult with a flood of insulin which abruptly drops your blood sugar to the point of hypoglycemia causing you to feel hungry sooner after eating that meal. Over time, this pattern results in a sort of tolerance to insulin which concludes in adult onset diabetes, or type II diabetes. This is on a spectrum relative to the ability of the cells to still take up insulin, or on the ability of the pancreas to respond to a sugar influx.

    As mentioned previously, carbohydrates are essential to a diet. Low carb diets such as the Atkins diet work in the short term by tricking your body into attacking fat stores to supplement energy production as the primary source. There are also well known risks involved such as kidney damage due to the physiology of metabolizing ketone bodies formed when stored fat is catabolized.

    Every morning I eat a banana, yogurt, 100% grape juice, and a bowl of whole grain oatmeal. I don't ever experience a glucose crash. Not to mention, I get a high powered dose of antioxidants, potassium and probiotics for heart health, digestive health, and cancer protection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    Holmes wins the "Sophist 1337 Award for Excellence in Portraying Academicians" For his role in bringing a third party source into the science discussion. Making the total count for this discussion on such a well studied topic 1, and the total count for this forum 17, were getting there folks!

    who cares!

    so what if i recommended a book!

    http://www.quantumbalancing.com/news/sugar_blues.htm

    WHY SUGAR IS TOXIC TO THE BODY

    In 1957, Dr William Coda Martin tried to answer the question: When is a food a food and when is it a poison? His working definition of "poison" was: "Medically: Any substance applied to the body, ingested or developed within the body, which causes or may cause disease. Physically: Any substance which inhibits the activity of a catalyst which is a minor substance, chemical or enzyme that activates a reaction."1 The dictionary gives an even broader definition for "poison": "to exert a harmful influence on, or to pervert".

    Dr Martin classified refined sugar as a poison because it has been depleted of its life forces, vitamins and minerals. "What is left consists of pure, refined carbohydrates. The body cannot utilize this refined starch and carbohydrate unless the depleted proteins, vitamins and minerals are present. Nature supplies these elements in each plant in quantities sufficient to metabolize the carbohydrate in that particular plant. There is no excess for other added carbohydrates. Incomplete carbohydrate metabolism results in the formation of 'toxic metabolite' such as pyruvic acid and abnormal sugars containing five carbon atoms. Pyruvic acid accumulates in the brain and nervous system and the abnormal sugars in the red blood cells. These toxic metabolites interfere with the respiration of the cells. They cannot get sufficient oxygen to survive and function normally. In time, some of the cells die. This interferes with the function of a part of the body and is the beginning of degenerative disease."2

    Refined sugar is lethal when ingested by humans because it provides only that which nutritionists describe as "empty" or "naked" calories. It lacks the natural minerals which are present in the sugar beet or cane. In addition, sugar is worse than nothing because it drains and leaches the body of precious vitamins and minerals through the demand its digestion, detoxification and elimination make upon one's entire system.

    So essential is balance to our bodies that we have many ways to provide against the sudden shock of a heavy intake of sugar. Minerals such as sodium (from salt), potassium and magnesium (from vegetables), and calcium (from the bones) are mobilized and used in chemical transmutation; neutral acids are produced which attempt to return the acid-alkaline balance factor of the blood to a more normal state.

    Sugar taken every day produces a continuously overacid condition, and more and more minerals are required from deep in the body in the attempt to rectify the imbalance. Finally, in order to protect the blood, so much calcium is taken from the bones and teeth that decay and general weakening begin.

    Excess sugar eventually affects every organ in the body. Initially, it is stored in the liver in the form of glucose (glycogen). Since the liver's capacity is limited, a daily intake of refined sugar (above the required amount of natural sugar) soon makes the liver expand like a balloon. When the liver is filled to its maximum capacity, the excess glycogen is returned to the blood in the form of fatty acids. These are taken to every part of the body and stored in the most inactive areas: the belly, the buttocks, the breasts and the thighs.

    When these comparatively harmless places are completely filled, fatty acids are then distributed among active organs, such as the heart and kidne
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    The Murky World of High-Fructose Corn Syrup

    By Linda Joyce Forristal, CCP, MTA

    Think of sugar and you think of sugar cane or beets. Extraction of sugar from sugar cane spurred the colonization of the New World. Extraction of sugar from beets was developed during the time of Napoleon so that the French could have sugar in spite of the English trading blockade.

    Nobody thinks of sugar when they see a field of corn. Most of us would be surprised to learn that the larger percentage of sweeteners used in processed food comes from corn, not sugar cane or beets.

    The process for making the sweetener high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) out of corn was developed in the 1970s. Use of HFCS grew rapidly, from less than three million short tons in 1980 to almost 8 million short tons in 1995. During the late 1990s, use of sugar actually declined as it was eclipsed by HFCS. Today Americans consume more HFCS than sugar.

    High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is produced by processing corn starch to yield glucose, and then processing the glucose to produce a high percentage of fructose. It all sounds rather simple--white cornstarch is turned into crystal clear syrup. However, the process is actually very complicated. Three different enzymes are needed to break down cornstarch, which is composed of chains of glucose molecules of almost infinite length, into the simple sugars glucose and fructose.
    First, cornstarch is treated with alpha-amylase to produce shorter chains of sugars called polysaccharides. Alpha-.... HFCS has the exact same sweetness and taste as an equal amount of sucrose from cane or beet sugar but it is obviously much more complicated to make, involving vats of murky fermenting liquid, fungus and chemical tweaking, all of which take place in one of 16 chemical plants located in the Corn Belt. Yet in spite of all the special enzymes required, HFCS is actually cheaper than sugar. It is also very easy to transport--it's just piped into tanker trucks. This translates into lower costs and higher profits for food producers.

    The development of the HFCS process came at an opportune time for corn growers. Refinements of the partial hydrogenation process had made it possible to get better shortenings and margarines out of soybeans than corn. HFCS took up the slack as demand for corn oil margarine declined. Lysine, an amino acid, can be produced from the corn residue after the glucose is removed. This is the modus operandi of the food conglomerates--break down commodities into their basic components and then put them back together again as processed food.

    Today HFCS is used to sweeten jams, condiments like ketchup, and soft drinks. It is also a favorite ingredient in many so-called health foods. Four companies control 85 percent of the $2.6 billion business--Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Staley Manufacturing Co. and CPC International. In the mid-1990s, ADM was the object of an FBI probe into price fixing of three products--HFCS, citric acid and lysine--and consumers got a glimpse of the murky world of corporate manipulation.

    There's a couple of other murky things that consumers should know about HFCS. According to a food technology expert, two of the enzymes used, alpha-amylase and glucose-isomerase, are genetically modified to make them more stable. Enzymes are actually very large proteins and through genetic modification specific amino acids in the enzymes are changed


    http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html

    fructose from fruit is not high fructose corn crap man made
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    17 posts?it says on left i have 92 or more and who cares
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    Sucrose is composed of glucose and fructose. When sugar is given to rats in high amounts, the rats develop multiple health problems, especially when the rats were deficient in certain nutrients, such as copper. The researchers wanted to know whether it was the fructose or the glucose moiety that was causing the problems. So they repeated their studies with two groups of rats, one given high amounts of glucose and one given high amounts of fructose. The glucose group was unaffected but the fructose group had disastrous results. The male rats did not reach adulthood. They had anemia, high cholesterol and heart hypertrophy--that means that their hearts enlarged until they exploded. They also had delayed testicular development. Dr. Field explains that fructose in combination with copper deficiency in the growing animal interferes with collagen production. (Copper deficiency, by the way, is widespread in America.) In a nutshell, the little bodies of the rats just fell apart. The females were not so affected, but they were unable to produce live young.

    "The medical profession thinks fructose is better for diabetics than sugar," says Dr. Field, "but every cell in the body can metabolize glucose. However, all fructose must be metabolized in the liver. The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic."

    HFCS contains more fructose than sugar and this fructose is more immediately available because it is not bound up in sucrose. Since the effects of fructose are most severe in the growing organism, we need to think carefully about what kind of sweeteners we give to our children. Fruit juices should be strictly avoided--they are very high in fructose--but so should anything with HFCS.

    Interestingly, although HFCS is used in many products aimed at children, it is not used in baby formula, even though it would probably save the manufactueres a few pennies for each can. Do the formula makers know something they aren't telling us? Pretty murky!



    http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    zubs hits the nail on the head
    and because of holmes I hit my head on the nail

    other than empty rhetoric, there is nothing especially murky about the chemical engineering involved in HFCS manufacturing

    it's just something people aren't educated about

    mass ignorance says "ewww fungus is used" "yikes, toxic chemicals are used" and the ignorance remains. Why not ask what remain in the final product? There is probably more toxic chemicals left on teflon pans. The difference is that the chemicals used to clean teflon in the factory don't make you fat, so noone cares.

    Murky process, maybe; murky product, no; excessive consumption of the product as well as many other bad nutritional choices combining for big population health concerns -- definately.



    BTW holmes I was just making a cynical observation and I do in fact care about the lack of support in many people's claims. Sorry to single you out, but I wanted to commend you on citing a third party source, albeit wikipedia, without taking away from the cynicism. Just say the word and I'll edit the post.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    I actually have to agree with Holmes on the fruit juice for children thing; the juice makers convincing parents that fruit juices are "healthy" has got to be one of the biggest nutritional cons ever. There's just as much sugar in most fruit juices as in soda, and often it's all fructose, which is well-established to be worse for your body than glucose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Not if your purchase products that are 100% juice (aka no sugar added).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    but look out for the spin "made with 100% juice"

    Also, juice is pasturized which kills benificial, as well as harmfull cultures present in the fruit.

    juice is no replacement to their counter part

    if your having a hard time getting kids to eat fruit, mix it up

    instead of giving them an apple, slice a couple apples up, coat them in lemon juice to preserve them, and serve them up with low sugar yogurt, almond butter or cereal; even putting a little sugar on them isn't as bad as giving them a glass of apple juice.

    you can also cook apples, either slice them up and brown them on one side, or bake them until brown. This all but destroys every last bit of vitamin C, but they are tasty, and still high in fiber, and you get more protein when their cooked.

    chop an apple into the water before adding oatmeal

    grapes are also quick and fun, no prep needed and you can throw sliced grapes in chicken or tuna salad sandwhiches, fruit salad, or just salad salad


    oranges can be a pain for kids, but clementines are much easier to peel, and much smaller; so less waste if you have a light eater for a kid

    bananas are easy and fun, and make good breakfast or lunch with an almond butter and banana sandwhich, or banana oatmeal



    there are many quick things you can do with different fruits so that kids will love them, most juices are more like candy than fruit, and should be classified as such.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    38
    Three things:
    Quote Originally Posted by holmes
    Quote Originally Posted by
    [url
    http://www.quantumbalancing.com/news/sugar_blues.htm][/url]
    Incomplete carbohydrate metabolism results in the formation of 'toxic metabolite' such as pyruvic acid and abnormal sugars containing five carbon atoms.
    Man I hate all that abnormal ribose swimming around in my body, especially all that nasty RNA... boy I wish I could just eliminate all that. (for clarification, the author did not indicate what exactly he meant by 'abnormal five carbon sugars', so I obviously made this statement tongue in cheek)


    Second:
    Giving your kid a single serving of 100% juice is not going to do any harm to them. Not to mention that they fortify juices with 100% daily vitamin C, and usually some other vitamins as well. If you select carefully and get something like grape juice with grape seed extract, you can actually provide more antioxidants per calorie than what they could get eating the natural fruit. There is nothing inherently bad with the substrates we consume so far as we moderate the number and size of the servings.

    Lastly:
    Holmes; Why did you originate this whole thread based on the work of someone done in 1957? There is certainly no reason to think that science has advanced in knowledge base in 5 decades. (again tongue in cheek)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    It can do harm, depending on particular phisiology and nutrition. In general, even, it is harmful indirectly, because it takes a lot of enzyme action to assimilate the sugar, which might prevent you from absorbing other nutrients: hence why sweets are traditionally saved for after the meal, to use up what enzymes are left, so that the body keeps making more than enough.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by zubs1
    Lastly:
    Holmes; Why did you originate this whole thread based on the work of someone done in 1957? There is certainly no reason to think that science has advanced in knowledge base in 5 decades. (again tongue in cheek)
    My sense is that it looks a lot like spam (or, is at least indicative of some sort of agenda), especially when you consider how much is simply copy/pasted (and how few of the posts actually address the responses made).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    The reality we all know at heart.

    Fiction and horror stories sell.

    Wonder how much this guy made?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    you guys must work for the sugar industry or are lobbyists

    are you overweight ? are you happy?

    im 15 pounds overweight and dropped 4 pounds since giving up sugar

    maybe ill lose that extra 15

    eat what you want to- i don't care

    SUGAR SUCKS -at lets white sugar

    sugar is in bananas and thats fine

    your junk science is not fine
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Not if your purchase products that are 100% juice (aka no sugar added).
    Nope. 100% natural, no-sugar-added grape juice, orange juice, and apple juice all have as much or more sugar in them than most sodas (and it's mostly fructose, which is worse for you than the HFC you find in most sodas). Most people are somewhat shocked to learn that, which is a testament to how thoroughly the juice industry has brainwashed people into blindly thinking soda=bad, fruit juice=healthy. Of course, if you get the stuff with added HFC, that just means there's even more sugar.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    you guys must work for the sugar industry or are lobbyists
    Riiiight...because clearly anyone who disagrees with you is working for the sugar industry

    Actually I suspect that most of the people here do generally agree with you that sugar intake should be carefully limited and that eating too much sugar can cause health problems. But you seem to be going somewhat overboard. The world isn't black-and-white binary, where a food is either totally good for you or totally bad for you, and people either totally agree with you or are against you and working for an evil industry.

    your junk science is not fine
    What junk science? No offense, but I'm guessing that many people here know a lot more about biology and nutrition than you. If you want to actually have a conversation, maybe you'll learn something about different types of sugars and how they affect the body. Believe it or not, science has learned a few things about sugar since your beloved book was written 35 years ago. Or you can just keep spewing "facts" and accusing everyone who calls you on your bullshit when you go overboard of working for the sugar industry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    even the sugar in fruit can be bad, no nutrient is an island. What you need to concider is the entire diet and lifestyle, cinluding eating habits: IE, not what you eat, but WHEN you eat.

    Waking up in the middle of the night to eat a banana and going back to bed is not healthy. Eating a banana for a daytime snack, assuming you are not always snacking, and give yourself time to digest before and after meals, may be a good choice if you need a bit of energy; but nuts might be a better choice especially if you need more energy and eat an otherwise low fat diet, because they have more nutrients. Nutrition is not black and white, and noone is saying "Sugar is good for you," it's just not as simple as you, and others on this thread, make it out to be. We are not in this together, we are not out to get you. LOL

    Sugar is usefull, not GOOD, there is a difference. There is more to nutrition than whether a specific nutrient is good or bad, better or worse. They each serve their purpose, and there is a point of excess, as well as deficiency. It is very complex and demands that more questions be asked, not more falsehoods fabricated.

    Telling people to eat less white sugar and high fructose corn syrup doesn't cut it because it then frames such things as biodynamically produced organic cane juice, honey, mollasses and maple syrup, as healthier alternatives. In a way some of them are better, but it has nothing to do with the sugar content: too much is still too much.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Not if your purchase products that are 100% juice (aka no sugar added).
    Nope. 100% natural, no-sugar-added grape juice, orange juice, and apple juice all have as much or more sugar in them than most sodas (and it's mostly fructose, which is worse for you than the HFC you find in most sodas). Most people are somewhat shocked to learn that, which is a testament to how thoroughly the juice industry has brainwashed people into blindly thinking soda=bad, fruit juice=healthy. Of course, if you get the stuff with added HFC, that just means there's even more sugar.
    Can you clarify this? I'm somewhat confused. I understand that fruits have natural sugar, and will raise blood glucose. In fact, I'm very well aware of that since I have to count carbohydrates to program my insulin pump whenever I ingest fruits or juices.


    I'm rather confident we agree in the end on these points, I'm just uncertain what yours was... so any help/clarification would be appreciated.


    EDIT: Never mind. I just reviewed your post. I'm an idiot. I see that you explicitly referenced fructose in the post to which I was originally responded, and I totally missed that. I thought you were railing against refined sugars, too. Mea culpa.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Not if your purchase products that are 100% juice (aka no sugar added).
    Nope. 100% natural, no-sugar-added grape juice, orange juice, and apple juice all have as much or more sugar in them than most sodas (and it's mostly fructose, which is worse for you than the HFC you find in most sodas). Most people are somewhat shocked to learn that, which is a testament to how thoroughly the juice industry has brainwashed people into blindly thinking soda=bad, fruit juice=healthy. Of course, if you get the stuff with added HFC, that just means there's even more sugar.
    Again, I must protest that a single serving of 100% juice will be more beneficial than detrimental to one's health given the vitamin C and antioxidants. If you consume more than that, then you are adding calories (160 per serving), and increasing the glycemic load.



    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    It can do harm, depending on particular phisiology and nutrition. In general, even, it is harmful indirectly, because it takes a lot of enzyme action to assimilate the sugar, which might prevent you from absorbing other nutrients: hence why sweets are traditionally saved for after the meal, to use up what enzymes are left, so that the body keeps making more than enough.
    Our bodies are quite remarkable at establishing a homeostasis. If you consumed a single serving (as stated above) every morning (as I do) your body adapts to favor production of enzymes needed for that task. You will not 'run out' of enzymes, so long as you consumed a diet rich in protein and covered other trace minerals (which a daily vitamin will ensure). This is especially true for enzymes used in metabolizing basic nutrient components. Its like being a student; you bring 2-3 pens but you bring hundreds of sheets of paper. You know you'll consume the paper far quicker than the ink. Likewise our bodies know they will constantly be needing the enzymes involved in the Kreb cycle but not as many for some mundane cell housekeeping task.


    Sweets are saved for after the meal because 'sweets' generally refer to foods high in refined sugars that maintain little to no nutritional value as stated earlier in this discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    "Again, I must protest that a single serving of 100% juice will be more beneficial than detrimental to one's health given the vitamin C and antioxidants."

    Uneccisary sugars, no matter what they are from, is bad, no matter what good things it comes with.

    A couple spoonfulls of sugar with my multivitamin is more benificial than detrimental? no, I'll just take my multivitamin.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    38
    First, fructose is a natural sugar. It has coevolved with all other life on this planet in fruiting bodies of plant life. Second, you get more antioxidants per unit volume from fruit juice (grape juice especially) than from the individual fruit. Since glycemic load is the current and best choice as indicator of 'stress on the system' then whether from glucose or fructose, whicever has a lower GL is better. Since the GL is normalized to glucose (which has a glycemic index of 100) then gram for gram of sugar from fructose to glucose then glucose would win. If you have a fruit juice that is 100% glucose sugar yet has 10% of the grams of sugar in an equal volume, while also having the same antioxidant load then I'd say it was a superior choice for consumption. However, to my knowledge, no such product exists, so I insist that a single serving of grape juice with grape seed extract IS a solid nutritional choice (so long as you aren't overloading your daily GL with other meals throughout the day).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Alright, I don't know but I think we might have a misunderstanding. I'm not saying "Juice is bad for you" but I'm saying "Juice is not always good for you"

    nothing is 'Always good for you' take for example, if you have an ulcer, juice is a bad idea

    if your eating something with tomato sauce or ketchup, juice, or anything with more acidity, is a bad idea


    acidic foods are best consumed with grains, and/or watered down
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by zubs1
    First, fructose is a natural sugar. It has coevolved with all other life on this planet in fruiting bodies of plant life.
    The fact that it's "natural" is of no particular relevance. There is a large body of work showing that in general, for most people fructose is harder on your body than glucose. It's something like ten times more likely to cause destructive glycosolation.

    Also, despite the general public's perception, the jury is very much out on the issue of whether consuming antioxidants improves health. Usually for every study claiming to have found some decrease in some particular problem in people who consume large amounts of antioxidants, several more studies will fail to find any correlation. It's entirely possible that there are health benefits to eating antioxidants, but at the moment no one is really sure.

    I should be clear here that I'm not saying that I think juice is bad for you; but it's also not entirely clear how good it is for you, or whether any benefits from fruit juice could be obtained in some other way that doesn't involve loads of fructose. But mostly, I'm just annoyed at how the juice industry has brainwashed a generation of parents in thinking that they should let their kids drink as much juice as they want because it's "healthy," and have no idea how much sugar is in there...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by zubs1
    First, fructose is a natural sugar. It has coevolved with all other life on this planet in fruiting bodies of plant life.
    The fact that it's "natural" is of no particular relevance. There is a large body of work showing that in general, for most people fructose is harder on your body than glucose. It's something like ten times more likely to cause destructive glycosolation.

    Also, despite the general public's perception, the jury is very much out on the issue of whether consuming antioxidants improves health. Usually for every study claiming to have found some decrease in some particular problem in people who consume large amounts of antioxidants, several more studies will fail to find any correlation. It's entirely possible that there are health benefits to eating antioxidants, but at the moment no one is really sure.

    I should be clear here that I'm not saying that I think juice is bad for you; but it's also not entirely clear how good it is for you, or whether any benefits from fruit juice could be obtained in some other way that doesn't involve loads of fructose. But mostly, I'm just annoyed at how the juice industry has brainwashed a generation of parents in thinking that they should let their kids drink as much juice as they want because it's "healthy," and have no idea how much sugar is in there...
    I was not aware of any controversy on the benefits of antioxidants. I'd be interested in reading more on that subject if you could direct me to any articles (preferably primary).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by zubs1
    First, fructose is a natural sugar. It has coevolved with all other life on this planet in fruiting bodies of plant life.
    The fact that it's "natural" is of no particular relevance. There is a large body of work showing that in general, for most people fructose is harder on your body than glucose. It's something like ten times more likely to cause destructive glycosolation.

    Also, despite the general public's perception, the jury is very much out on the issue of whether consuming antioxidants improves health. Usually for every study claiming to have found some decrease in some particular problem in people who consume large amounts of antioxidants, several more studies will fail to find any correlation. It's entirely possible that there are health benefits to eating antioxidants, but at the moment no one is really sure.

    I should be clear here that I'm not saying that I think juice is bad for you; but it's also not entirely clear how good it is for you, or whether any benefits from fruit juice could be obtained in some other way that doesn't involve loads of fructose. But mostly, I'm just annoyed at how the juice industry has brainwashed a generation of parents in thinking that they should let their kids drink as much juice as they want because it's "healthy," and have no idea how much sugar is in there...
    fructose is natural but high fructose corn syrup is man made

    i wonder if the junk food advocates here are overweight ?im 15 pounds overweight i guess and cutting back on sugar and maybe lost 2 pounds or nothing -ill try it longer

    but i think i feel more muscler so far in a way
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Who's advocating junk food?

    Also, please be more specific, preferably providing examples: terms like "junk food" "man made" "natural" "health food," are not apropriate for a scientific discussion, unless everyone was using the same definition., which I doubt we could hope to agree on, and few of us are confident enough to allow someone else to define the words for us.

    Are vegitables grown by man, man made? Is an energy bar junk food? Is jerky junk food? is popcorn, potato chips, or peanut butter junk food? We have already disagreed on whether or not juice is junk food. There are just too many varied products to define things as "junk food" and "health food," and the fact that there are no other catagories for foods that don't fit the other one, just shows how arbitrary such catagories are.

    stick with using specific examples, like "product x has chemicals a, b and c; these chemicals have effects x, y, z"

    statements made according to such a framework can be confirmed

    statements like "junk food is bad" cannot be confirmed
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    sugar is man made and hfcs is very man made
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Your grasp of the English language is profound. Is there anyone with a scientific bone in their body willing to discuss this topic?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Your grasp of the English language is profound. Is there anyone with a scientific bone in their body willing to discuss this topic?
    i started the damn post and what i say is true

    you dont like me start your own post then
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    High-Fructose Corn Syrup Produces Toxic Chemical "HMF" When Heated by Mike Adams the Health Ranger
    http://www.naturalnews.com/027286_HFCS_food_honey.html

    (NaturalNews) If you know anything about the food supply, you know that honey bees are a crucial part of the food production chain. In the United States, they pollinate roughly one-third of all the crops we eat, and without them, we'd be facing a disastrous collapse in viable food production.

    That's why, when honey bees started to disappear a few years ago, scientists scrambled to find the root cause of the phenomenon, which has since been dubbed "Colony Collapse Disorder."

    The name is a bit of a misnomer, though. It's not really a "disorder." It's more of a poisoning. Or at least that's what we may be learning from new research that's just been published in the ACS' Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac...).

    It's been difficult, of course, trying to determine the cause of colony collapse disorder. Some of the suggested theories for explaining the phenomenon included chemical contamination from pesticides, genetic contamination from genetically modified crops, changes in the Earth's magnetic field, climate change and air pollution. In an attempt to nail down some scientific answers, researchers from the USDA Agricultural Research Service in Tucson, Arizona joined with other researchers in New Orleans and the University of Wisconsin to check out another possible culprit: High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

    HFCS, as you may already know, is a processed, liquid sweetener used in disturbingly large amounts throughout the global food supply. You can find it in not just sodas, but pizza sauce, salad dressings and even whole wheat bread. It's in breakfast cereals, food bars, peanut butter, ketchup and a thousand other products.

    There are two reasons why you find HFCS in so many food products: 1) It's sweet. 2) It's cheap.

    It is for these same two reasons that high-fructose corn syrup is fed to honey bees. It provides them the sugar calories to stay active without resulting in a huge cost for the beekeeper. That's why HFCS has been used for decades as a food source for honey bees.

    But this very food sourc
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    "i started the damn post and what i say is true"

    oh, ok then


    To quote your source
    "put it plainly, when you cook HFCS, it becomes contaminated with HMF. And according to the research, levels of HMF "jumped dramatically" when temperatures rose above 120 degrees Fahrenheit (which isn't very hot, by the way)."

    How much of this toxic chemical is necessary to kill a bee? how much of this toxic chemical is found in the bees?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    High-Fructose Corn Syrup Produces Toxic Chemical "HMF" When Heated by Mike Adams the Health Ranger
    http://www.naturalnews.com/027286_HFCS_food_honey.html

    (NaturalNews) If you know anything about the food supply, you know that honey bees are a crucial part of the food production chain. In the United States, they pollinate roughly one-third of all the crops we eat, and without them, we'd be facing a disastrous collapse in viable food production.

    That's why, when honey bees started to disappear a few years ago, scientists scrambled to find the root cause of the phenomenon, which has since been dubbed "Colony Collapse Disorder."

    The name is a bit of a misnomer, though. It's not really a "disorder." It's more of a poisoning. Or at least that's what we may be learning from new research that's just been published in the ACS' Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac...).

    It's been difficult, of course, trying to determine the cause of colony collapse disorder. Some of the suggested theories for explaining the phenomenon included chemical contamination from pesticides, genetic contamination from genetically modified crops, changes in the Earth's magnetic field, climate change and air pollution. In an attempt to nail down some scientific answers, researchers from the USDA Agricultural Research Service in Tucson, Arizona joined with other researchers in New Orleans and the University of Wisconsin to check out another possible culprit: High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
    Bullshit. If you actually read the paper linked to in the article, you'll see that it says no such thing. Whoever wrote this news story obviously either didn't bother to actually read the article, or didn't understand it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    How much of this toxic chemical is necessary to kill a bee? how much of this toxic chemical is found in the bees?
    It's not a problem so long as you don't let your HFC that you're using as bee food become too acidic. This has been known since at least the 1960s, when people started using HFC as a food for bees. Bee honey is also prone to forming HMF, which isn't surprising since chemically honey is very similar to HFC (which is why HFC makes such a good food for bees). All this has absolutely nothing to do with colony collapse disorder, contrary to claims in the retarded "news" article.

    Edit: I don't actually know jack about bees, I'm just repeating what the authors of the linked paper said in their journal article.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by zubbs1
    I was not aware of any controversy on the benefits of antioxidants. I'd be interested in reading more on that subject if you could direct me to any articles (preferably primary).
    Sorry about the late reply, I apparently missed this post.

    For just one example, you might look at the review article "Fruits, vegetables and coronary heart disease," NATURE REVIEWS CARDIOLOGY Volume: 6 Issue: 9 Pages: 599-608.

    From the abstract:
    "Most of the evidence supporting a cardioprotective effect comes from observational epidemiological studies; these studies have reported either weak or nonsignificant associations. Controlled nutritional prevention trials are scarce and the existing data do not show any clear protective effects of fruit and vegetables on coronary heart disease.
    There are indeed some studies showing that people who eat lots of fruit and other sources of antioxidants are healthier, but for every one study that you can find claiming there's an effect, you'll find another study that looked at the same thing and found no effect. So the jury is still out, although it's certainly an area of lively investigation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    i keep thinking some here must work for trashy amerikan food industry

    all i know is when i eat foods or drinks with hfcs i get acid reflex and feel bad

    eat all you want -i dont care

    mexican sodas by law i think has to have cane sugar in it and its illegal in europe i think
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    i keep thinking some here must work for trashy amerikan food industry
    Good for you. You're still wrong, no matter how often you think that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    So, holmes, was that previous post a concession of previous claim that I asked for support for? If your too lazy to do the research and find out for yourself, just let me know and I'll do it for you.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    So, holmes, was that previous post a concession of previous claim that I asked for support for? If your too lazy to do the research and find out for yourself, just let me know and I'll do it for you.
    ok get to it genius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Well I've done some research, but I'm too lazy to compose it. If you'd bother to do it yourself you'd see how rediculous it is to blame us feeding HFCS to bees to colony collapse. The same HMF that is produced by the heating of HFCS is produced by the heating of honey.

    HMF has nothing to do with HFCS in particular, except that some of the methods to make HFCS involve using catalysts that produce HMFs, other methods do not. Bee keepers have access to the same information that I do, except they don't have to access wikipedia.com and search "HMF." Nope, that's too much work! They can just call up a consultant to come assess their operations, and they do. HMF toxicity is probably one of the first things the test, whether or not the bees are fed with HFCS.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    mexican sodas by law i think has to have cane sugar in it and its illegal in europe i think
    Again, false. It's perfectly legal and mexico and europe. Why wouldn't it be? There hasn't been any research demonstrating that it's more dangerous for people than sugar, honey, or fruit juice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    theres been research -i ate it and felt worse -i stopped and felt beter

    did my own damn research

    and the link about murky world of high fructose said in experiments lab rats hearts exploded on the fructose corn syrup

    and the back of the old version of sugar blues shows duftey before and after he quit sugar -he lost maybe 50 pounds

    are you apologists overweight?

    i bet most nobels winners are thin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    theres been research -i ate it and felt worse -i stopped and felt beter

    did my own damn research

    and the link about murky world of high fructose said in experiments lab rats hearts exploded on the fructose corn syrup

    and the back of the old version of sugar blues shows duftey before and after he quit sugar -he lost maybe 50 pounds

    are you apologists overweight?

    i bet most nobels winners are thin
    I lost 80 pounds and didn't quit sugar.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    theres been research -i ate it and felt worse -i stopped and felt beter

    did my own damn research

    and the link about murky world of high fructose said in experiments lab rats hearts exploded on the fructose corn syrup

    and the back of the old version of sugar blues shows duftey before and after he quit sugar -he lost maybe 50 pounds

    are you apologists overweight?

    i bet most nobels winners are thin
    Of course quitting sugar is likely to make you lose weight. It's very high in calories. No one ever argued that. You now seem to be heroically arguing points that no one ever disputed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    ... High fructose corn syrup isnt kosher in the orthodox jewish world -probably not in Muslim world either

    Americans will eat anything if their government approves it like aspartame suralose
    just get a patent and its sold

    fools
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Cooking on Saturday isn't kosher either, thus such activity is unhealthy. Also, it is foolish citizens, who live in foolish nations, who don't have laws against cooking on Saturday.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    ... High fructose corn syrup isnt kosher in the orthodox jewish world -probably not in Muslim world either
    That's because the Jews in question don't eat any corn or corn products. It's not anything about HFC specifically.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    you changed your signature over me i feel?

    this is just a post about sugar stories of how its bad and some lost weight

    any scientific evidence its a great addition to your diet?

    i bet your hooked on bosko or ovalteen like George Costanza on Seinfeld
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Holmes: Based on your ineffable track record, and no insider information whatsoever, I'll take that bet. I have a bit too much fat and carbs in my diet, but sugar is not a problem for me, although it has been, when I worked at a soup kitchen and we had fresh baked donuts delivered everyday. mmmmm

    Anyway, what I do is none of your business, and not part of this discussion, feel free to start a different thread if you want to discuss such things.
    _______________________________________

    I'm not sure if there is any scientific evidence that says whether or not something is great. Last time I checked science didn't define things in arbitrarily ambiguous terms, but calculations, although those ambiguous terms can provide contextual interpretation of those calculations, it is not the interpretation that provides the support for the calculation, but the calculation that supports the interpretation.

    Due to the complexities of biological needs, it will be hard, if not impossible to define nutrition in such terms as "good, bad, better, worse, great, poor, etc"

    It's relative to culture, and depending on who your addressing, their understanding of science, and their mental and physical health, there are some valid reasons to simplify, but never a valid reason to accept an oversimplification as fact. If a particular population has a lot of health issues caused by excessive sugar consumption, when addressing them, it might be safe to say that they should cut down on sugar consumption. But in that particular population there may be individuals who don't eat enough carbs and suffer from ketosis because of what you say, because someone fed them an oversimplification as fact, and told them that carbs become sugar.


    My mom has hypertension, and even though the doctor clearly told her don't eat gluten and simple sugars, she avoids all carbohydrates because of what her friends say, which are just oversimplifications considered truth. She eats a lot of fat, which I'm pretty sure is a common evolutionary strategy to make up for the lack of calories. I am sure she has a variety of deficiencies, the one's I'm mostly sure about are some b vitamins and protein.

    Simplifications are dangerous. There is a branch of psychology dealing with the best way to frame nutrition and health statements, so as to make them understandable and useful to lay-folk, without leaving room for erroneous interpretations, and over simplifications. Everyone thinks they are capable of doing these expert's job, but if that was the case, why would they get funding?

    Stop oversimplifying, and stop using anecdotal evidence to make up for a lack of an argument. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you, it is not logical, and dangerous to think about things in terms like "If you can't prove me wrong, then I must be right." when it comes to health issues, because there are a variety of biological lifeforms, with their own needs. Humans as well are very similar in the obvious ways, but very different in less obvious ways. Our unique biological chemistry, environment, physical activity(including mental activity), determines what nutrients we need, not some hobbyists on a forum.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    you type better and i type terrible so i guess i cant pretend to keep up with you

    i know its hard to quit eating junk i still do it

    but i ask you have you or anyone read the book sugar blues?its interesting from a historical standpoint

    i have slow computers and maybe even brain damage

    im guessing you are about 22 years old?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    I do rant a lot, sorry if it's overwhelming, I don't mean to hog the thread, but I think my concerns are valid. People oversimplify, and there are too many "common sense" fallacies circulating throughout the uneducated population that cause much confusion about what someone should and shouldn't do, and distrust of those who might be able to help figure it out.

    Sugar is a cheep source of calories. Too much sugar can do a lot of bad things, but so can too much fat, too much fiber, and I think too much protein(but am not sure), as well as many of the reccomended micronutrients, like iron, sodium, zinc, calcium, magnesium, etc
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3
    Hello Holmes,
    I am Lucy and I read all the post contributing this forum.I found this post about various sugar to be very valuable and I was unaware about the difference between white and brown sugar.The reference "sugar blues" you provided is valuable.Its really a knowledgeable book.Thanks for posting it.Stay connected.sugar blues
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Brown sugar is less-refined than granulated sugar, it still contains some molasses whereas granulated sugar has had all the molasses removed from it. This gives brown sugar trace levels of some micro nutrients, and an insignificantly less amount of sugar(and thus inflammation) per equivalent serving. As for the specific types of sugar in each, granulated sugar is pure sucrose that is 50/50 fructose and glucose. Brown sugar is mostly sucrose, but it has a tiny proportion of unlinked fructose and glucose, with insignificantly more glucose than fructose. If you like the difference between brown and granulated sugar, you will especially like the difference between molasses and brown sugar, which is the same but to a much greater magnitude.

    check out these nutrition facts, and make sure you mess around with the serving size, so that you can compare them fairly.

    granulated sugar
    http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/sweets/5592/2

    brown sugar
    http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/sweets/5591/2

    molasses
    http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/sweets/5573/2
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    you guys must work for the sugar industry or are lobbyists

    are you overweight ? are you happy?

    im 15 pounds overweight and dropped 4 pounds since giving up sugar

    maybe ill lose that extra 15

    eat what you want to- i don't care

    SUGAR SUCKS -at lets white sugar

    sugar is in bananas and thats fine

    your junk science is not fine
    I love this. I've been variously accused of being in the pockets of the HIV conspiracy, the Big Pharma cancer conspiracy, the allopathic drugs conspiracy, the vaccine makers conspiracy, the frankly bizarre global conspiracy against Big Oil, the Atheist-Materialist-Evolutionist conspiracy... frankly I'm fabulously wealthy from the kickbacks even though I got found out on those. Still I'm sure glad I dodged the bullet on this one.

    Except- holmes you're peddling pseudoscience. Damn, I blew it. Now he's on to me. Hope my White Sugar Conspiracy cheque clears before they see this post...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    yeah, I'm rich, that's why I couch serf and find myself living in diseased hell holes, volunteering at the food bank so I can eat, and begging for work

    I don't know what kind of life Holmes is living, but he doesn't know what he's missing

    what these people don't get(or maybe they do :wink: ) is that for every accusation they place on someone of being part of a conspiracy, it is just as easy to say the same about them

    anyone can simply say "that's an appeal to authority" or "that's an appeal to popular opinion" but just because there is an authority, or there is a popular opinion, doesn't mean you have to agree for the sake of appealing to them, you might have a different reason, for example: observation of reality, and consideration of evidence.

    "I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." -Aristotle


    Your a part of the conspiracy to make everyone think everything they disagree with is a part of a conspiracy. My only proof: I disagree with you.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    yeah, I'm rich, that's why I couch serf and find myself living in diseased hell holes, volunteering at the food bank so I can eat, and begging for work

    I don't know what kind of life Holmes is living, but he doesn't know what he's missing

    what these people don't get(or maybe they do :wink: ) is that for every accusation they place on someone of being part of a conspiracy, it is just as easy to say the same about them

    anyone can simply say "that's an appeal to authority" or "that's an appeal to popular opinion" but just because there is an authority, or there is a popular opinion, doesn't mean you have to agree for the sake of appealing to them, you might have a different reason, for example: observation of reality, and consideration of evidence.

    "I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." -Aristotle


    Your a part of the conspiracy to make everyone think everything they disagree with is a part of a conspiracy. My only proof: I disagree with you.
    I'm just in awe of how any of these wealthy groups stay wealthy with all the payouts they must be making to get us all to lie for them. I mean, the HIV denialists for example seem pretty convinced that some 3 million-ish biologists are in on the game. I don't get out of bed for less than $20,000 a year and I'm a pretty small fish, so their budget must be rather phenomenal... On the order of 10-100 billion dollars a year. Hm. That's gotta be tricky given that the big guys like Pfizer only have revenue on the scale of 50 billion a year.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I'm just in awe of how any of these wealthy groups stay wealthy with all the payouts they must be making to get us all to lie for them. I mean, the HIV denialists for example seem pretty convinced that some 3 million-ish biologists are in on the game. I don't get out of bed for less than $20,000 a year and I'm a pretty small fish, so their budget must be rather phenomenal... On the order of 10-100 billion dollars a year. Hm. That's gotta be tricky given that the big guys like Pfizer only have revenue on the scale of 50 billion a year.
    Well, you don't have to pay off all the biologists; you only really need to bribe the few hundred thousand or so who are actively doing HIV research. The rest probably won't be paying close enough attention to catch on.

    Edit: The above wasn't serious, in case anyone didn't catch that...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I'm just in awe of how any of these wealthy groups stay wealthy with all the payouts they must be making to get us all to lie for them. I mean, the HIV denialists for example seem pretty convinced that some 3 million-ish biologists are in on the game. I don't get out of bed for less than $20,000 a year and I'm a pretty small fish, so their budget must be rather phenomenal... On the order of 10-100 billion dollars a year. Hm. That's gotta be tricky given that the big guys like Pfizer only have revenue on the scale of 50 billion a year.
    Well, you don't have to pay off all the biologists; you only really need to bribe the few hundred thousand or so who are actively doing HIV research. The rest probably won't be paying close enough attention to catch on.

    Edit: The above wasn't serious, in case anyone didn't catch that...
    Yes, much more plausible
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    it would be much more profitable to just create a cure that only kills the weak strains

    consider how profitable yearly flu vaccines are
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    i will admit for me sugar is hard to give up
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    probably because it helps your body function better
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    30
    the main things is that because it can produce a significant rise in total cholesterol, triglycerides and bad cholesterol and a decrease in good cholesterol....also causes a loss of tissue elasticity and function...... and specially it feeds cancer cells and has been connected with the development of cancer of the breast, ovaries, prostate, rectum, pancreas, biliary tract, lung, gallbladder and stomach.
    [ spam link removed ]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    it also feeds non cancerous cells
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79 White sugar is bad?? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13
    I never hear that white sugar is bad?? In this forum only... ^^, I think the book that you have read is a fiction.... ^^
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4
    Cigarettes kill people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    19
    [quote="drowsy turtle"]
    Quote Originally Posted by holmes
    4. Sugar can produce a significant rise in total cholesterol, triglycerides and bad cholesterol and a decrease in good cholesterol.
    Really? I wasn't aware there was cholesterol in sucrose.

    There's no cholesterol in sucrose, but there is a fatty acid precursor that is derived from the breakdown of sugars -- acetyl-CoA.

    how much it increases, i'm not sure, but it's not necessarily incorrect to suggest that sugar can increase FA.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Sugar is bad because it has no frontal lobe, and so is neurologically incapable of learning what is good... it's a shame, because it has such a sweet soul :/
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    i still eat too much sugar but i feel the cfl lightbulbs are 100 times worse
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    i still eat too much sugar but i feel the cfl lightbulbs are 100 times worse
    Right. They have no nutritional value whatsoever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •