Homesteading Forum banner
61 - 80 of 121 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,054 Posts
Wow... Did you really read this article? If not I think you might want to read it and edit your post to erase it.

Basically, this is an article written by a fat guy that likes sugar, with no scientific credentials. Repeatedly the author quotes scientists that explain why sugar is so dangerous and then he says "Meh...I don't believe that doctor", or "Yeah, I think that study is wrong...because sugar is so stinkin' tasty!!!".

The next time you do a quick Google search in order to bolster your argument...you might want to take the time to make sure it actually bolsters your argument rather than debunking your argument.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,258 Posts
.....

That said, take a gander at the nutritional label on any food package. You'll see daily percentages from Iron, calcium, sodium, cholesterol, protein, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, fat, etc etc...... but no daily limit percentage for sugar! (things that make you go "Hmmmmmm")..
.
Ummmm...those aren't daily LIMITS, they are the percentage of the daily minimum REQUIREMENTS.

Mon
 
  • Like
Reactions: NutPatchFarm

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,309 Posts
I'm not saying sugar is good for you. I'm saying in moderated amounts it is not going to do much harm.

I'm not sure who to believe. Some advertisements & things on TV talk about the obesity problem in America, yet other times I will see an ad about how so many children are going hungry in this country. Which is it??

I think one of the biggest problems is drinking soda. I know soooooo many people that drink soda all day long. That & the Monster drinks. Now if those were regulated like the sale of alcohol, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It is unreal how much soda is consumed in this country.

I also know there are people that will sit & eat a whole pack of cookies. Not good. However, even the dietician at the hospital said eating a cookie or 2 or a small piece of cake is fine. It is when people eat huge amounts of sugary stuff that problems result.

So how about we agree that LARGE amounts of sugar is bad for you. Small amounts, not so much.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
100 Posts
Well good for you. But everyones Body Is different.~! Sugar once again is NOT a evil nasty thing to eat it is Your Opinion quoted other Opinions and That IS IT~!
It is not my opinion, it is scientific fact.
This reminds me of the tobacco arguments of the 60's and 70's. It took three decades to get people to listen.

Why do some people seem to fight for their own misinformed opinion in the face of hard science? Why is it that people will put their faith into mythology but not science? Some things just baffle me.


Moderation along with Exercise.
So let me ask you a question about "moderation with exercise". Could you explain what you mean by that? Is moderation mean limiting food intake so as to restrict the calories? Or eat all you want but only a little of each food? Or what??
And what about exercise? How does exercise play a part in your philosophy?

To be honest, I think I know what you're saying, its what's been said for a long time, but I want to know what it means to you.


And the great majority of todays folks do no do that.
Me = Guilty of that!!!!! I do exercise now however.


Back in the day people Worked from Sun up to Sun down and did many things of heavy labor working out and off the calories that Sugar Might being on.
Sugar got a bad rap years ago when so many believed that Sugar cause diabetes, today we know better it does not.
LOL :facepalm:
If you tell me what logic or reasoning you're using to generate that explanation, I might be able to work within the constraints and boundaries of your views on this.



And just like so many things that once were bad from eating butter to even charcoaling your meat caused problems, today we know better they do not.
And this sugar kick that some think so so bad is yet another one of those that will go bye bye after time when people will now better that sugar is not that evil nasty that Some Think it is.
As with the smoking and the tobacco, it won't be the science that goes bye bye, it will be the people who refuse to learn. At least with the tobacco they had the excuse that it was highly addicting.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
100 Posts
I'm not saying sugar is good for you. I'm saying in moderated amounts it is not going to do much harm.
Exactly!!
If people limit their sugar intake to less than 10 grams per day, and that's not very much, we would watch diabetes and all the other medical problems we have in the USA mostly vanish within 5 years. The effects would be as obvious as daylight within two weeks. Its THAT pronounced.

Let me add that the 10 gram figure is for healthy people, not those who are already sick from obesity or diabetes or other ailments. Sick people should cut it out to less than 2 or 3 grams or even less!

I'm not sure who to believe. Some advertisements & things on TV talk about the obesity problem in America, yet other times I will see an ad about how so many children are going hungry in this country. Which is it??
Follow the science. The hard part is that because we have "Freedom of speech" in the USA, some paid crooked scientist working for the food industry can muddy the information with their own version.

Its a valid issue you bring up and a serious one. Its one of the times when our freedoms actually work against us.
People with a scientific education and background are usually capable of distinguishing the scam from the real stuff, the problem is that most people aren't scientifically orientated today.

But again, your point here is quite valid. One hint, the minute you see science backing a product or brand endorsement, run Forrest run!!! LOL


I think one of the biggest problems is drinking soda. I know soooooo many people that drink soda all day long. That & the Monster drinks. Now if those were regulated like the sale of alcohol, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It is unreal how much soda is consumed in this country.
Wow Wendy, we actually agree on something! Yehawww!! See, we're getting along now! :D
You are 100% correct on this. The sugary drink intake, which also includes fruit juice, is responsible for a large part of the problem.

I also know there are people that will sit & eat a whole pack of cookies. Not good. However, even the dietician at the hospital said eating a cookie or 2 or a small piece of cake is fine. It is when people eat huge amounts of sugary stuff that problems result.
Well, your dietician is both right and wrong depending on how you interpret what was said.
A small amount of sugar isn't going to hurt you. In fact, for top atheletes, that sugar is beneficial. (The key word is "top" as in extreme energy expenditure)
But for us normal folks, the more you limit the sugar, the better. The more you ingest, the more harm is done.

So how about we agree that LARGE amounts of sugar is bad for you. Small amounts, not so much.
Well if you're going to start being reasonable like that, you and I might start getting along!!!!!!! :kiss:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,054 Posts
Follow the science. The hard part is that because we have "Freedom of speech" in the USA, some paid crooked scientist working for the food industry can muddy the information with their own version.

Its a valid issue you bring up and a serious one. Its one of the times when our freedoms actually work against us.
People with a scientific education and background are usually capable of distinguishing the scam from the real stuff, the problem is that most people aren't scientifically orientated today.

But again, your point here is quite valid. One hint, the minute you see science backing a product or brand endorsement, run Forrest run!!! LOL
This is very well said...although I don't completely agree with your premise that sucrose is the main problem.

Anything that rapidly raises a persons blood glucose level, requiring a rapid infusion of insulin to process that spike is very problematic. Fructose is a problem, but amylopectin A, the complex carbohydrate found in modern wheat is a very long chain of sugars that has a glycemic index much higher that of fructose...natural or processed. A lot of this has to do with how efficiently amylopectin A is converted to sugar in the human gut.

You are also correct about natural occurring fructose consumed with its associated fiber is a much more acceptable option that other forms of sugars.

Anyway, my point is a "scientist" who is being paid to come to a conclusion will find it very easy to "prove" that conclusion. Clinical studies are a several hundred billion dollar industry. Take the profit motive (research dollars, book deals, fellowships, etc.) out of a study and you will get much closer to the truth.

Everywhere you look you find doctors sheepishly coming out of the shadows saying "ummm...yeah...sorry, we have kinda been wrong for 70 or 80 years about the "good""whole grains", vegetable fats, and USDA food pyramids, and the "bad" saturated fats, animal proteins, animal fats, butter, salt, etc...our bad!"

Follow these bad clinical studies back in time and you find they were bought and paid for by Unilever, Proctor and Gamble, Cargill and other companies pushing vegetable fats, corn oil, Oleo, Crisco, etc. They told our grandparents to eat more grains. They told them lard and red meat and butter that our forebearers ate were bad for us (even though heart disease was virtually non-existent at that time).

I also would like to say that our freedoms NEVER work against us as long as we take ownership of our acquisition of information, decision making, and buying choices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,769 Posts
Remember Euell Gibbons, Mr eat a natural diet? He said it would be good for you and you would live healthy. He died at..... only 64 huh? I can't tell you how many people I have known that have worried about eating perfect and totally health conscious and died in their youth. Part of this is a persons body chemistry part I think is people being too radical, moderation is the key. My daughter gave up sugar as an experiment, she lost considerable amount of weight, sounds good, but it wasn't, she was skinny as a rail to begin with. Sugar helped keep on the weight she needed. Me, I weigh 130 I should be around 140, it is murder for me to gain any weight, I can not digest fat, I must get my calories from somewhere. What works for one doesn't always work for another. Many of the studies people quote are what is working for the average. I have seen anti-sugar fanatics all my life, they are usually no healthier than the person who doesn't pay much attention and leads a balanced life. It is arrogance on the anti-sugar persons part, "If it works for me and then I'm right and your wrong." I have learned everyone is different and each is responsible for their own lives. It is fine to say "Hey, a low sugar diet works for me and helps with this or that problem I have", but to try to insist that others do as you do, and believe as you do is exactly what tyranny is about. On the subject of moderation, it is different for each person. I remember at one time their was a two drink limit a club gathering. It was found even 2 drinks for some was over what was moderation for their body chemistry. Their were others who could ingest 3 or 4 drinks with no sign of trouble. So each must discover their own limit to foods as is the case with alcohol. It is wrong to condemn someone because their body chemistry is different than yours. Arguing over food is a trivial waste of time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
I used to keep a spice bottle of cinnamon and individual servings of applesauce in my desk when I was a team leader, and whenever a nurse had forgotten or not taken for whatever reasons his or her B/P meds they would come to me for a heaping spoonful of sugar stirred into applesauce. It will drop your B/P 10 points in 10 minutes- even to keep you going till you can get home home and take your missed medication. Cinnamon when taken regularly also reduces blood sugar and triglycerides.
Wait! Wait!

This is important. GMB, did you mean a heaping teaspoon of cinnamon?

I often saw my mom eating those individual cups of applesauce with cinnamon stirred in. Now I know why!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
100 Posts
Anything that rapidly raises a persons blood glucose level, requiring a rapid infusion of insulin to process that spike is very problematic. Fructose is a problem, but amylopectin A, the complex carbohydrate found in modern wheat is a very long chain of sugars that has a glycemic index much higher that of fructose...natural or processed. A lot of this has to do with how efficiently amylopectin A is converted to sugar in the human gut.
You sound educated in this matter.

The difference between the fructose and the long chain complex carbohydrates is how your body handles them.

Long chain carbs are glucose and every cell in your body can burn glucose for energy (even the bacteria inside you can burn it). When you ingest glucose your body will suck up and burn the vast majority of it for energy. Only a small fraction of that glucose will make it to your liver and your liver will turn most of that into glycogen storage. Eat too much glucose without burning it all and your insulin response will generate subcutaneous fat stores. (Not all that unhealthy)

However, when you ingest fructose, the entire load gets metabolized by the liver (and only the liver) and your liver can only do one thing with it. When fructose enters your liver, your liver metabolizes it into VLDL (very bad cholesterol) and visceral (organ) fat. (the very worst kind of fatty tissue).

So basically, for every gram of fructose you eat, you gain a gram of fat. (in layman's terms)

Fructose raises your bad cholesterol and generates instant visceral fat. That's ALL it does. It does not give you energy for the day unless you've some how exercised so intently that you've burned up all your glycogen stores. (never going to happen for normal people)

So you see, there is a difference between grains like wheat or corn or rice, which give you glucose, and sweets like fructose. The two sugars are treated in the body as differently as a speeding ticket and a murderer are in court.
Get a speeding ticket and you go to court, pay a fine, and go home.
Murder someone, and they throw you in prison where you stay there and rot.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
So you see, there is a difference between grains like wheat or corn or rice, which give you glucose, and sweets like fructose. The two sugars are treated in the body as differently as a speeding ticket and a murderer are in court.

This is where you leave the reservation... Sugar is sugar. The liver is an organ like the heart. AKA meant to be used. Ingested Glucose in excess of 1 teaspoon at a time in your blood and it must be converted to fatty acids... or you die! That fatty acid is VLDL... Where is is converted? Want to know what health issues that causes. ;)

Back to the heart... It doesn't use glucose and can't. It only uses fatty acids. Because glucose causes fatigue and harmful acid buildup in muscle tissue as well as the rest of the body. (ever hear of the heath benefits of anti-oxidants... They are for glucose metabolism) Imagine the horror if your heart got the same "burn" after a long run or a stressful situation... It would have to stop for a bit. LOL


Look into carbohydrate metabolism and the links to dementia and Alzheimer’s. It will make you say enough with the healthy grains.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
Discussion Starter · #74 ·
My doctor asked me if I had any side effects from my medicine. I told him everything was good, today I found a side effect. :ashamed::kiss:

Back to the doctor to get the little blue pills now....:banana:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,769 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
100 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
so if I read the above post, God made fruits and vegetables to destroy our livers and give us bad fats?

Did God invent agriculture? Most Hunter gatherers simply didn't have access to grains at all. Even fewer had fruits for more than a very short time each year. So yes other than for very short periods for winter fattening carbs harmful.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
100 Posts
This is where you leave the reservation... Sugar is sugar.
Yes it is! And smoke is smoke, metal is metal, music is music, a computer is a computer, a virus is a virus, etc etc.

Ingested Glucose in excess of 1 teaspoon at a time in your blood and it must be converted to fatty acids... or you die! That fatty acid is VLDL... Where is is converted? Want to know what health issues that causes. ;)
Well, your statement here is both right and wrong at the same time.
Technically, you're correct, but realistically, this statement is inaccurate.

Only a very very small fraction of that glucose will turn into VLDL. Its like saying "If I put a penny on your car then your car will weigh more". While technically true, its a misleading statement.

The fact is, when you consume too much glucose, only about 1.5% of it will get turned into VLDL or visceral fat. The rest gets turned into glycogen (not harmful) or subcutaneous fat (not so harmful). Whereas, when you consume fructose, almost 100% of it gets turned into VLDL and visceral fat.

So yes, sugar is sugar but different sugars are processed in your body in different ways.

Defending Fructose as a harmless sugar is akin to defending tobacco back in the 60's or 70's.

Back to the heart... It doesn't use glucose and can't. It only uses fatty acids. Because glucose causes fatigue and harmful acid buildup in muscle tissue as well as the rest of the body. (ever hear of the heath benefits of anti-oxidants... They are for glucose metabolism) Imagine the horror if your heart got the same "burn" after a long run or a stressful situation... It would have to stop for a bit. LOL
I don't see how this is relevant to our fructose conversation or how it relates to high blood pressure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,027 Posts
I'm not sure who to believe. Some advertisements & things on TV talk about the obesity problem in America, yet other times I will see an ad about how so many children are going hungry in this country. Which is it??
Why do you think it has to be one or the other? It is actually both. There are children in America, and other first world nations, who are obese AND there are children who are starving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,769 Posts
I don't see how this is relevant to our fructose conversation or how it relates to high blood pressure.
It doesn't, It's all about poking the hornets nest for fun, and watching the agitation. My comments are simply that I have found people rabidly anti-sugar to be imbalanced lacking in simple common sense. I try with comments to get people to see their imbalance. For example, maltose enters the blood steam faster than glucose (dextrose), which needs no digestion, why? Don't know but blood studies did show it, if glucose is used as a bench mark of 100% speed of digestion, maltose is 105%, Sucrose (a glucose and fructose combined) is 59%. Fructose by itself is around 20% and lactose is around 30%. If you notice the sugars all digest at different rates. Thus, eating a balance allows a steady supply of fuel for the body as the foods are digested over time. Balance! Humans are omnivores we eat some of everything. It is how we are designed. Common sense! As my daughter said "if you don't want to eat a type of sugar, that is fine for you, but can I have your cup cake then?"
 
61 - 80 of 121 Posts
Top