Sugar as poison
Replies
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I found this ..
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/62/1/203S.short
Many factors potentially influence the digestion, absorption, and metabolism of the various species of sugars occurring in the human diet. Experimental evidence indicates that the source of sugars in foods does not in itself affect the rate of absorption or the metabolism of the sugars. However, the form in which the sugars are ingested and the physical and chemical properties of the food matrices do have significant effects on the rates of absorption. Food matrices influence gastric emptying and through their physical properties affect the rate of transport across the small intestinal mucosa. Disaccharides form the major proportion of ingested carbohydrates in the small intestine and the digestion and transport systems for these sugars, except for lactose, are the most efficient. After absorption, the pathways of the different dietary sugars converge and the original dietary source has only minimal effects on metabolism.
seems to say the opposite
Yeah, I saw that earlier, but it didn't mention anything about which/whether micronutrients are needed in the process.
so you left this out of your opening post..
interesting..
... because I didn't think it was relevant supportive of my sugar fear mongering.
FIFY
0 -
Also depending if one is in deficit or not, too. . .0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I found this ..
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/62/1/203S.short
Many factors potentially influence the digestion, absorption, and metabolism of the various species of sugars occurring in the human diet. Experimental evidence indicates that the source of sugars in foods does not in itself affect the rate of absorption or the metabolism of the sugars. However, the form in which the sugars are ingested and the physical and chemical properties of the food matrices do have significant effects on the rates of absorption. Food matrices influence gastric emptying and through their physical properties affect the rate of transport across the small intestinal mucosa. Disaccharides form the major proportion of ingested carbohydrates in the small intestine and the digestion and transport systems for these sugars, except for lactose, are the most efficient. After absorption, the pathways of the different dietary sugars converge and the original dietary source has only minimal effects on metabolism.
seems to say the opposite
Yeah, I saw that earlier, but it didn't mention anything about which/whether micronutrients are needed in the process.
so you left this out of your opening post..
interesting..
... because I didn't think it was relevant.
you did not think a study on how sugar is metabolized is relevant to the question your posed?
me thinks you intentionally left it out because it does not fit into your sugar is poison world view.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »
Well...were someone eating spoonsful of pure sugar all day, every day, he MIGHT (and I stress MIGHT) have a point.
But since generally you're eating sugar along with other ingredients that contain such minerals & nutrients, and other foods that contain them I'm not overly concerned.
But the point is that if you're getting your sugar in the form of candy, you aren't getting the other minerals and nutrients mentioned.
who gets all their sugar from candy????????????
que the strawmen arguments...0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »
Well...were someone eating spoonsful of pure sugar all day, every day, he MIGHT (and I stress MIGHT) have a point.
But since generally you're eating sugar along with other ingredients that contain such minerals & nutrients, and other foods that contain them I'm not overly concerned.
But the point is that if you're getting your sugar in the form of candy, you aren't getting the other minerals and nutrients mentioned.
And to repeat...are "you" eating nothing but hard candy all day every day?
I don't see how what I eat personally is relevant to the discussion of whether the information is valid, but since you asked, I don't eat candy as of recently.
The theory is: you eat an apple, you get sugar plus the right amount of the other micronutrients etc needed to digest it. You eat candy, you just get the sugar. I don't think it's a crazy idea that nature creates foods as they're 'meant to be'.
0 -
I don't know of any fruit that has everything on that long list you listed.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Now, I'm just a layman, but logically if that many vitamins and minerals were absolutely necessary for sugar metabolism, then the same effect would happen with any kind of fruit since I don't think most fruits have all of that stuff in it, also if it's that bad for your body to do that, the trait of "not trying to metabolize that stuff if you don't have sufficient micronutrients" should have been passed on somewhere along our evolution, no?
He's saying that in nature, the micronutrients required are included within the sugar-containing food. But when we take the sugar out of the food and add it to other stuff that doesn't have the right micronutrients, then there's a problem.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Now, I'm just a layman, but logically if that many vitamins and minerals were absolutely necessary for sugar metabolism, then the same effect would happen with any kind of fruit since I don't think most fruits have all of that stuff in it, also if it's that bad for your body to do that, the trait of "not trying to metabolize that stuff if you don't have sufficient micronutrients" should have been passed on somewhere along our evolution, no?
He's saying that in nature, the micronutrients required are included within the sugar-containing food. But when we take the sugar out of the food and add it to other stuff that doesn't have the right micronutrients, then there's a problem.
He'd be wrong, if he said that. If all you ate was sugar (or broccoli or x) you'd have issues.
Try this, eat a tea spoon of sugar. Did you die?
No?
Confirmation bias - you has it.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Now, I'm just a layman, but logically if that many vitamins and minerals were absolutely necessary for sugar metabolism, then the same effect would happen with any kind of fruit since I don't think most fruits have all of that stuff in it, also if it's that bad for your body to do that, the trait of "not trying to metabolize that stuff if you don't have sufficient micronutrients" should have been passed on somewhere along our evolution, no?
He's saying that in nature, the micronutrients required are included within the sugar-containing food. But when we take the sugar out of the food and add it to other stuff that doesn't have the right micronutrients, then there's a problem.
Because the micronutrients that your body uses are only acquired and used during the meal you're consuming? Your body doesn't get micronutrients from other sources and use them as it needs them? If I am not deficient in any micronutrient, you're saying that I'll still not be able to digest gummy bears because they themselves do not contain micronutrients?
Why do you say these things, OP? You know they make no sense!0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I found this ..
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/62/1/203S.short
Many factors potentially influence the digestion, absorption, and metabolism of the various species of sugars occurring in the human diet. Experimental evidence indicates that the source of sugars in foods does not in itself affect the rate of absorption or the metabolism of the sugars. However, the form in which the sugars are ingested and the physical and chemical properties of the food matrices do have significant effects on the rates of absorption. Food matrices influence gastric emptying and through their physical properties affect the rate of transport across the small intestinal mucosa. Disaccharides form the major proportion of ingested carbohydrates in the small intestine and the digestion and transport systems for these sugars, except for lactose, are the most efficient. After absorption, the pathways of the different dietary sugars converge and the original dietary source has only minimal effects on metabolism.
seems to say the opposite
Yeah, I saw that earlier, but it didn't mention anything about which/whether micronutrients are needed in the process.
so you left this out of your opening post..
interesting..
... because I didn't think it was relevant.
you did not think a study on how sugar is metabolized is relevant to the question your posed?
me thinks you intentionally left it out because it does not fit into your sugar is poison world view.
No, I didn't understand it.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »
Well...were someone eating spoonsful of pure sugar all day, every day, he MIGHT (and I stress MIGHT) have a point.
But since generally you're eating sugar along with other ingredients that contain such minerals & nutrients, and other foods that contain them I'm not overly concerned.
But the point is that if you're getting your sugar in the form of candy, you aren't getting the other minerals and nutrients mentioned.
And to repeat...are "you" eating nothing but hard candy all day every day?
I don't see how what I eat personally is relevant to the discussion of whether the information is valid, but since you asked, I don't eat candy as of recently.
The theory is: you eat an apple, you get sugar plus the right amount of the other micronutrients etc needed to digest it. You eat candy, you just get the sugar. I don't think it's a crazy idea that nature creates foods as they're 'meant to be'.
Try eating a raw potato. As it is meant to be. Or raw beans. Or unprocessed coffee....0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »
Well...were someone eating spoonsful of pure sugar all day, every day, he MIGHT (and I stress MIGHT) have a point.
But since generally you're eating sugar along with other ingredients that contain such minerals & nutrients, and other foods that contain them I'm not overly concerned.
But the point is that if you're getting your sugar in the form of candy, you aren't getting the other minerals and nutrients mentioned.
And to repeat...are "you" eating nothing but hard candy all day every day?
I don't see how what I eat personally is relevant to the discussion of whether the information is valid, but since you asked, I don't eat candy as of recently.
The theory is: you eat an apple, you get sugar plus the right amount of the other micronutrients etc needed to digest it. You eat candy, you just get the sugar. I don't think it's a crazy idea that nature creates foods as they're 'meant to be'.
Which is why I put "you" in quotes...I'm not talking about you specifically, but the same "you" (ie general "you") that you (specifically you) referred to in the post I quoted.But the point is that if you're getting your sugar in the form of candy, you aren't getting the other minerals and nutrients mentioned.
So I ask again...are "you" eating nothing but hard candy all day every day?0 -
must. resist.0
-
Is the quack who wrote this paper a friend of Dr Oz and his fraud friends? I'm starting to think posting stuff like this should be an automatic ban from the forums.0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »
Well...were someone eating spoonsful of pure sugar all day, every day, he MIGHT (and I stress MIGHT) have a point.
But since generally you're eating sugar along with other ingredients that contain such minerals & nutrients, and other foods that contain them I'm not overly concerned.
But the point is that if you're getting your sugar in the form of candy, you aren't getting the other minerals and nutrients mentioned.
And to repeat...are "you" eating nothing but hard candy all day every day?
I don't see how what I eat personally is relevant to the discussion of whether the information is valid, but since you asked, I don't eat candy as of recently.
The theory is: you eat an apple, you get sugar plus the right amount of the other micronutrients etc needed to digest it. You eat candy, you just get the sugar. I don't think it's a crazy idea that nature creates foods as they're 'meant to be'.
But "nature" didn't create most of the fruits that we eat. We bred them for sweetness, to satisfy our own tastes for sweetness. Also, asserting that anything that exists in nature is "meant to be" isn't an argument that stands up to scrutiny.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »
Well...were someone eating spoonsful of pure sugar all day, every day, he MIGHT (and I stress MIGHT) have a point.
But since generally you're eating sugar along with other ingredients that contain such minerals & nutrients, and other foods that contain them I'm not overly concerned.
But the point is that if you're getting your sugar in the form of candy, you aren't getting the other minerals and nutrients mentioned.
And to repeat...are "you" eating nothing but hard candy all day every day?
I don't see how what I eat personally is relevant to the discussion of whether the information is valid, but since you asked, I don't eat candy as of recently.
The theory is: you eat an apple, you get sugar plus the right amount of the other micronutrients etc needed to digest it. You eat candy, you just get the sugar. I don't think it's a crazy idea that nature creates foods as they're 'meant to be'.
Nature didn't create the apples you eat today. Sorry, apples you buy today were bioengineered at universities. Pretty true of a lot of foods you eat.
the theory you are quoting is wrong. Eating a piece of candy is not going to hurt you. In fact, if you need some energy, your body is going to burn those simple carbs pretty quickly.
Sad truth is, no matter what you eat, you're going to die anyway.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »
Well...were someone eating spoonsful of pure sugar all day, every day, he MIGHT (and I stress MIGHT) have a point.
But since generally you're eating sugar along with other ingredients that contain such minerals & nutrients, and other foods that contain them I'm not overly concerned.
But the point is that if you're getting your sugar in the form of candy, you aren't getting the other minerals and nutrients mentioned.
And to repeat...are "you" eating nothing but hard candy all day every day?
I don't see how what I eat personally is relevant to the discussion of whether the information is valid, but since you asked, I don't eat candy as of recently.
The theory is: you eat an apple, you get sugar plus the right amount of the other micronutrients etc needed to digest it. You eat candy, you just get the sugar. I don't think it's a crazy idea that nature creates foods as they're 'meant to be'.
the theory is wrong.
Because if you have already filled in your micronutrients for the day then what difference does to make if you eat candy or an apple?
why do you keep assuming that if you eat added sugar that is ALL that someone would eat?
do you not understand that the human diet consists of more than just one food type????????????
Nature also creates poisonous things that if you eat them you will die....0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »
Well...were someone eating spoonsful of pure sugar all day, every day, he MIGHT (and I stress MIGHT) have a point.
But since generally you're eating sugar along with other ingredients that contain such minerals & nutrients, and other foods that contain them I'm not overly concerned.
But the point is that if you're getting your sugar in the form of candy, you aren't getting the other minerals and nutrients mentioned.
And to repeat...are "you" eating nothing but hard candy all day every day?
I don't see how what I eat personally is relevant to the discussion of whether the information is valid, but since you asked, I don't eat candy as of recently.
The theory is: you eat an apple, you get sugar plus the right amount of the other micronutrients etc needed to digest it. You eat candy, you just get the sugar. I don't think it's a crazy idea that nature creates foods as they're 'meant to be'.
Nature does not create foods for human consumption. The foods that we eat have other purposes than just food for humans. For example, a fruit's sole purpose is to spread the seeds of the plant. Yes, some of them may have evolved to be tasty enough for animals to eat them and spread the seeds with their poop.
We have streamlined all of the fruits and vegetables that we can buy at a grocery store to meet our needs. Nothing that we eat is consumed as nature "meant for them to be." Nature don't give a ^$&! if their fruit meets our nutritional needs or not - nature only cares that more little baby plants are born to carry on the species.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 2.3K Health, Wellness and Goals
- 532 Introduce Yourself
- 153 Getting Started
- 413 Health and Weight Loss
- 218 Food and Nutrition
- 76 Recipes
- 356 Fitness and Exercise
- 2 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 30 Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 42 Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 285 Motivation and Support
- 38 Challenges
- 2 Debate Club
- 475 Chit-Chat
- 1 Fun & Games
- 21 MyFitnessPal Information
- 9 News and Announcements
- Roadmap
- 6 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 6 MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions