Homesteading Forum banner
81 - 100 of 121 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
100 Posts
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 30% and lactose is around 20%. 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?"
Do you not see an "imbalance" in our fructose consumption in the USA ?

For a normal healthy person, a small amount of fructose isn't going to impose any significant or measurable harm. While true, there are two problems with this statement.

1) You have to be intimately aware of the infiltration of sugar in our diets in order to avoid the fructose or you will inadvertently ingest massive amounts of it. Seems that everything has sugar added these days.

2) The key is "normal healthy person". The fact is, ~70% of Americans are overweight, and of those, ~35% are so overweight they are obese.

Considering those stats, the new "normal" is fat and not healthy, which is why our health care system is so wacky.

Now, a little bit of alcohol is not going to harm the average healthy person, but give a little bit of alcohol to an alcoholic, or recovering alcoholic, and it will do significant harm.

You could replace the word alcohol with heroin or tobacco or any other of the substances. Folks should get used to grouping fructose in with those.

When an overweight person ingests fructose, the harm it is doing is huge.

Attempting to down-play the problem of fructose poisoning as one of simple moderation is like trying to tell an alcoholic to moderate their alcohol and they'll be fine.
Once you've reached the toxic limits of fructose ingestion and your body has become fat, its too late. You have to completely cut the fructose to get healthy again.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
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.


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.


I don't see how this is relevant to our fructose conversation or how it relates to high blood pressure.
And once your glycogen stores in the liver are full? Which for the average human is 100 grams. 100 grams of glucose is 400 kcals. If your eating a high carb diet your glycogen stores are never empty. Mostly about half full at meal time. So 200 kcals of carbs is enough to start VLDL production in most eating SAD.

Where is the glucose turned into fat? A hint... It's in the liver. How does fats get moved around the body? it must be stored in a special package. Because fat doesn't mix well with water (aka blood). Cholesterol. The cholesterol package is VLDL. ;)


I don't see why you treat the sugars differently. They are all the same. They are all bad for you.
 

·
Miniature Horse lover
Joined
·
25,219 Posts
I've been living off junk food, fast food, candy bars and soda all week. The only thing that raised my bp is the pain and NSAIDs.
Don't worry this is just another agenda by the few to control Americans. This is or WAS a free country until some get their agenda through.
And now someone writes a book and oh my goodness it is on the net it Must Be True. Thing of it is those that write books wants to pray of the uninformed and the doom and gloomers that have nothing else to do but to control others.
And to Make Money off them. is number one not what is good or bad or indifferent but to make a fortune off those that think just because it is something on the net it must be the truth and nothing but the truth. But it isn't so. Everyones body is different and everyone treats what they intake differently.
This everything that tastes so good is so bad for you has got to be taken with a grain of salt. Sort of speak, LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,132 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.
I had two uncles, both very fit. They owned a gym. My uncle Ike, ate lots of fish and chicken, red meat on occasion, a little red wine now and then, he was a masseuse and worked out every day. Died of a massive heart attack when he was in his late 50's. His brother, Moe, ate red meat everyday, drinks frequently, smoked unfiltered cigarettes most of his life, rode motorcycles until about a year ago (switched to a scooter) and he just retired from being a trainer at Golds Gym in Palm Desert at the age of 93. He holds the record for the most pull ups for an old guy! Google. ..Moe Carson to see him on Rachel Ray's show! He's a kook!!!

One size does NOT fit all!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
100 Posts
Don't worry this is just another agenda by the few to control Americans. This is or WAS a free country until some get their agenda through.
And now someone writes a book and oh my goodness it is on the net it Must Be True. Thing of it is those that write books wants to pray of the uninformed and the doom and gloomers that have nothing else to do but to control others.
And to Make Money off them. is number one not what is good or bad or indifferent but to make a fortune off those that think just because it is something on the net it must be the truth and nothing but the truth. But it isn't so. Everyones body is different and everyone treats what they intake differently.
This everything that tastes so good is so bad for you has got to be taken with a grain of salt. Sort of speak, LOL
LOL... I love it!!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
100 Posts
I had two uncles, both very fit. They owned a gym. My uncle Ike, ate lots of fish and chicken, red meat on occasion, a little red wine now and then, he was a masseuse and worked out every day. Died of a massive heart attack when he was in his late 50's. His brother, Moe, ate red meat everyday, drinks frequently, smoked unfiltered cigarettes most of his life, rode motorcycles until about a year ago (switched to a scooter) and he just retired from being a trainer at Golds Gym in Palm Desert at the age of 93. He holds the record for the most pull ups for an old guy! Google. ..Moe Carson to see him on Rachel Ray's show! He's a kook!!!

One size does NOT fit all!
I think your "one size" conclusion is inaccurate. A better fit would be "There are exceptions to most rules"

Setting public policy on the exception probably isn't the wisest move.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
100 Posts
What is curious is the poorer you are the more likely you are to be fat.

Because hi carb empty calorie food is cheapest.
I've been wondering about that. The source(s) where I learned about the fructose said the same thing and I've been trying to corroborate it with what I see in the stores.

Lets face it, McDonald's is expensive. Beyond the basic price of the food, there's also tax.

But have you seen the price of those sugar rich cereals? Wow! Three and four dollars for a small box. A box of cookies at three bucks. And it doesn't go far.

Now a gallon of whole milk is around $2.50 -$3 or so and there's plenty of protein and fat there. Chicken is usually pretty cheap when it goes on sale, in fact, its so cheap its tough to raise and slaughter your own for cheaper.
And eggs? Wow, packed with protein and fat and cheap cheap cheap.

It makes me wonder if the high sugar diet we see in the poor sectors are the result of misplaced priorities (or complete lack of), or poor education (no surprise there), maybe laziness (not wanting to spend time cooking), or if it really is rooted in the money, which doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I don't have the answer on this but it is something I have wondered about. I have found our (my) diet to be a lot cheaper than buying all that junk food and certainly much cheaper than fast food.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,769 Posts
Attempting to down-play the problem of fructose poisoning as one of simple moderation is like trying to tell an alcoholic to moderate their alcohol and they'll be fine.
Once you've reached the toxic limits of fructose ingestion and your body has become fat, its too late. You have to completely cut the fructose to get healthy again.
Is this the main problem? Or is the main problem that we sit on our butt cheeks all day watching T.V. and playing video games while stuffing our face on potato chips and soda pop instead of getting off our duff and going out and working off the foods we eat? Sure sloshing soda pop down our throats all day can't be good, but eating a balanced diet and getting out and working it off is what makes a person healthy. Not a paranoid fear of the possibility of consuming a type of natural sugar. Balance people, Balance. (This is getting fun I'd better stop before I get in trouble.)
 

·
Miniature Horse lover
Joined
·
25,219 Posts
I had two uncles, both very fit. They owned a gym. My uncle Ike, ate lots of fish and chicken, red meat on occasion, a little red wine now and then, he was a masseuse and worked out every day. Died of a massive heart attack when he was in his late 50's. His brother, Moe, ate red meat everyday, drinks frequently, smoked unfiltered cigarettes most of his life, rode motorcycles until about a year ago (switched to a scooter) and he just retired from being a trainer at Golds Gym in Palm Desert at the age of 93. He holds the record for the most pull ups for an old guy! Google. ..Moe Carson to see him on Rachel Ray's show! He's a kook!!!

One size does NOT fit all!
So true but why is it that thee that are so gun ho on saying things are so bad for a person make those people feel like 2nd class citizens. It is Their Option and those that have been taken in on some book or other so called nature sites on the net, as if it is there by golly it is true they are always right and can say to each there own and Leave at that. Many Live To Eat not eat to live ,that is there choice and that is the way it is no matter what someone on a agenda wants.
And they have fun in live doing what they want without someone coming up and literally taking the food of of their mouth and preaching to them for a half hour on the bad stuff they are eating. If a person is happy and wants to eat a 1/2 pounder with fries and a Coke, then so be it.
After all my Handle should Have been Wimpy

I Live on Hamburgers, I may fix them myself or eat out.
In fact just yesterday I had a double Cheese Burger with fries and a Coke while doing my weekend grocery shopping. LOL
Tomorrow I put in a roast and potatoes and butter and carrots with a solid.
But Not Today~!
Tomorrow AM I am planning on having Breakfast at Perkins that make great French Toast course it sure will be smothered in syrup. LOL
When I have a steer butchered I have most of it made into Hamburger.
But i still eat out a few times each week.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
100 Posts
Is this the main problem? Or is the main problem that we sit on our butt cheeks all day watching T.V. and playing video games while stuffing our face on potato chips and soda pop instead of getting off our duff and going out and working off the foods we eat? Sure sloshing soda pop down our throats all day can't be good, but eating a balanced diet and getting out and working it off is what makes a person healthy. Not a paranoid fear of the possibility of consuming a type of natural sugar. Balance people, Balance. (This is getting fun I'd better stop before I get in trouble.)
What you are suggesting is what has been suggested for many years and the science is now showing that it is only a 1/2 truth, or maybe I should say a 1/4 truth.

The fact is, if you eat a single cookie, you'd have to jog for 20 minutes to burn it off. Eat a Big Mac and you'll need to do intense physical activity for half the day.

The human body is an amazingly efficient machine and suggesting that we need to burn what we eat through exercise is unrealistic. Simply put, you'd have two choices, go hungry all the time or go jogging all day long. Neither are realistic.

Let me be clear, that's not to say that exercise is not important, I'm just saying that if you think you're going to burn enough calories to lose weight through exercise, you're mistaken, or you're going to be exercising all day every day to do it.

While fructose is a natural sugar, in nature, it is always found with an abundance of natural fiber too. In modern foods, the fiber has been removed and the fructose left behind or even added to. Unit for unit, orange juice is worse for you than soda pop is because orange juice has more fructose than the soda does. But you can eat the whole orange and be fine!

Fiber is the antidote to sugar. Fiber binds to the sugar and carries it through your digestive system where it passes to the toilet rather than getting absorbed in massive doses. Without the fiber, it all gets absorbed into your body.

And let me make a note on your comment about "natural". Arsenic and Uranium are also "natural". That word means almost nothing so don't fall for its marketing gimmicks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,309 Posts
The fact is, ~70% of Americans are overweight
Not according to what I hear on the TV ads. About that many are going hungry in the US. :D

Now a gallon of whole milk is around $2.50 -$3 or so and there's plenty of protein and fat there. Chicken is usually pretty cheap when it goes on sale, in fact, its so cheap its tough to raise and slaughter your own for cheaper.
I wish milk was $2.50 here. And do you really think the stuff they inject into chickens is good for you? You might think sugar is evil, but read the label on your chicken. What is that injected solution they use? HMMMMMMM, I'm sure not very good for you.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
100 Posts
Not according to what I hear on the TV ads. About that many are going hungry in the US. :D
The key word there is "tv ads". IE: They want something from you.

Ok, I'm certainly no expert on the subject matter of hunger in the USA or how it affects kids, so I'm just going go by my common sense here and you tell me if you think I am mistaken. I might be, this isn't a trick question.

What do you think would happen if a skinny and malnourished child approached a school teacher or police officer or any other government employee or care related worker, and said "I'm always hungry". Or lets face it, didn't even say anything and just showed up looking skinny and sickly and/or malnourished in any way?

I think I know what would happen. The red lights would flash, bells would ring, the clouds would part, and the child welfare people would come screaming down like ants to a potato chip.

I find the whole "hungry kids in the USA" thing suspicious.


I wish milk was $2.50 here. And do you really think the stuff they inject into chickens is good for you? You might think sugar is evil, but read the label on your chicken. What is that injected solution they use? HMMMMMMM, I'm sure not very good for you.
Well, I'm not saying you're not wrong, but the problem in this country isn't what is injected in the chicken, its the sugar in the food period. State one medical case where commercial chicken has cause some health crisis or even injured a subset of people some how. Good luck with that. The same could be said of genetically modified foods. I looked into those and what I found was that the paranoia was so over blown it was a joke. If you research how they modify things and what it means, you'll find little to be overly alarmed about. Again, find me a medical crisis based on it.

Also, back to the chicken, most of the stuff they inject into chickens are antibiotics. It is against federal law to give them growth hormones. In my research to figure out why I was gaining weight uncontrollably, the growth hormones came under suspicion so I research them too.

Antibiotics are not bad for you in a singular sense, they are bad for society as a sampled whole but not for the sampled individual, not normally anyhow. This holds true for the animals we inject too and how those animals affect us when we eat them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,044 Posts
State one medical case where commercial chicken has cause some health crisis or even injured a subset of people some how. Good luck with that.
Salmonella:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...chicken-safety/overview/chicken-safety-ov.htm

Growth hormones may be illegal but arsenic wasn't until just recently and penicillin and tetracycline are still used to promote growth:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-10-10/what-was-arsenic-doing-in-our-chicken-anyway-
http://www.kcet.org/living/food/the...y-the-way-theres-arsenic-in-your-chicken.html

Correction, one arsenic compound is still permitted to be fed to poultry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,309 Posts
I looked into those and what I found was that the paranoia was so over blown it was a joke.
I could say the same thing about the paranoia over sugar. :D I know you claim scientific research & such, but most research is paid for by someone that has something to gain by saying it's bad for you. Just a thought.
 
81 - 100 of 121 Posts
Top