Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is sugar really that bad for you?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Lukey View Post
    This is getting a bit off topic guys, i'm not talking about fruit i'm talking about sucrose. I know that mark sisson and robb wolf say it's bad for you, and it wasn't available for us to eat regularly, but WHY is it bad. It'a just glucose and fructose
    Here's a Sally Fallon take on that. She's interesting, too.

    Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook That Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats: Amazon.co.uk: Sally Fallon: Books

    So she says the sweet taste tells us that the fruit is ready to eat. When the fruit is ready to eat then, at the same time, its vitamin and mineral content is highest. The "sweetness" is a signal (maybe). But under modern conditions it no longer is.

    Sounds plausible.

    That being so, do you want to eat something that fakes that signal but is low in vitamins and minerals?
    Last edited by Lewis; 08-30-2012, 11:02 AM. Reason: spelling

    Comment


    • #17
      The only sucrose i ever eat is in dark chocolate once a week, so other than that i never eat it. This is all just out of curiosity.

      Comment


      • #18
        I think that white table sugar is the worst, it is highly refined and goes through numerous chemical processes before it is the product we know and love. I keep a bag of turbinado sugar at home for ice tea or whatever on occasion. It is a product that comes out of the sugar factory just before they refine the hell out of it. It still contains several key nutrients, whereas white sugar has none. Turbinado sugar is basically dried molasses, which is even better, nutrient-wise.

        I rarely add sugar to anything, but when I do, it's definitely not white table sugar.

        Comment


        • #19
          The chocolate i eat for example, green and blacks organic 85% has 20g of sugar per 100g. They use organic cane sugar. If someone was to eat some potatoes and fruit, they would be ingesting glucose and fructose. If someone was to eat sugar, they would be ingesting glucose and fructose. Why eating potatoes and fruit is healthy, and sugar is supposidly very unhealthy, is beyond me.

          Comment


          • #20
            It's not that "sugar" is bad for you. It's about what it eventually turns into in the body. When you eat a breakfast that by many standards would be considered healthy, such as a bowl of oatmeal, a piece of whole-grain toast, an apple, and some orange juice- every bit of that meal is going to turn right into blood glucose. It will cause a massive insulin spike which is going to drive fat storage while ensuring a glycolytic metabolism. Doing this often will eventually cause problems like weight gain, and with that comes the issues of atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.

            It's also about context; if glycogen stores in the liver and muscle are depleted (say, from a fast) and you work out, you break down those muscles which then seriously need glycogen to rebuild. So you can and should eat a bunch of "sugar" after a workout, as it is likely to go straight to your muscles without being stored as fat.


            An apple, or a similar amount of sugar in a candy bar; the only difference lies in what's in addition to the sugar. Obviously, as a health-conscious individual, you would want the apple. It is unprocessed, contains fiber, other vitamins, and is delicious. A candy bar contains nothing else of any benefit, and is highly processed. When it comes to fat loss, however, they are virtually the same thing; one sugar is not better than the other. It's still going to turn into blood glucose and spike your insulin levels.
            Last edited by bdilla; 08-30-2012, 11:56 AM.
            this great blue world of ours seems a house of leaves, moments before the wind

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Lukey View Post
              This is getting a bit off topic guys, i'm not talking about fruit i'm talking about sucrose. I know that mark sisson and robb wolf say it's bad for you, and it wasn't available for us to eat regularly, but WHY is it bad. It's just glucose and fructose
              Now I am sure you never read Sisson's or Wolf's books...why do you want to consume sugar and continually spike your insulin level? Sugar has zero nutritive value. We want to eat foods that are nutritionally dense. The last thing a diabetic or prediabetic (nearly 30% of the US population depending on where you get your numbers) wants to put in their mouth is sugar.

              Mark says your goal is to be a fat burner, not a sugar burner. If you eat sugar, ( as the majority of people in this world do every day of their lives) you will always be a sugar burner as the body will preferentially burn sugar.

              Are you just trolling here?
              Last edited by Moochy; 08-30-2012, 05:19 PM.
              Primal/Paleo is not for everyone, it's for those who have committed to understand.
              READ THE BOOK! ...as Robb Wolf says: "Trying to convince people to save their own ass will burn you out."

              Vegetarians are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit, and an affront to all I stand for -- the pure enjoyment of food. Anthony Bourdain

              and yes, calories DO count my little piggies

              Comment


              • #22
                Yes but the only unhealthy thing you said there was the weight gain, which isn't the concern. Gaining weight is unhealthy regardless if it comes from eating too much fat or too much sugar. It still doesn't make sense for dietitions to say sugar causes heart disease, diabetes etc.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Moochy View Post
                  Now I am sure you never read Sisson's or Wolf's books...why do you want to consume sugar and continually spike your insulin level?

                  Are you just trolling here?
                  Are you kidding? I don't want to consume sugar, if you actually bothered to read my first post i said i never eat sucrose? And sugar doesn't spike insulin any more than most other carbohydrates do, it has a gi of 64. I have been following marks daily apple for over a year so please have the decency to read my posts and not call me a troll.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
                    And no offense to zoe harcombe but she's pretty much a nutty zero-carb zealot. She even blames the obesity crisis on fruit. lol
                    Pretty sure that is one of them there ad hominizer attacks that you logical folk use . And I'm pretty sure the "I meant no offense disclaimer" doesn't carry much weight either.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Lukey View Post
                      Are you kidding? I don't want to consume sugar, if you actually bothered to read my first post i said i never eat sucrose? And sugar doesn't spike insulin any more than most other carbohydrates do, it has a gi of 64. I have been following marks daily apple for over a year so please have the decency to read my posts and not call me a troll.
                      So what's wrong with my earlier post? The sweetness seems, in nature, to be a signal that the fruit is ripe and now has the maximum content of vitamins and minerals it ever will have. The refined product lacks those vitamins and minerals. We pay for that.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Theres nothing wrong with your post it's a good point. But it still doesn't explain why sugar is "unhealthy". Sure eating fruit is healthier because it of the vitamins and minerals is healthier, but that doesn't mean not eating them is unhealthy. Sugar doesn't have those minerals and vitamins, but that doesn't explain why it is bad for you. You can still get those minerals from somewhere else.
                        Last edited by Lukey; 08-30-2012, 12:48 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Plus, if the refining process itself carries any weight with you (if you like to consider what you eat "whole foods") then there is this:

                          "Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) is a perennial grass in the family Poaceae. It is cultivated in tropical and sub-tropical regions for the sucrose that is found in its stems. It requires a frost-free climate with sufficient rainfall during the growing season to make full use of the plant's great growth potential. The crop is harvested mechanically or by hand, chopped into lengths and conveyed rapidly to the processing plant. Here it is either milled and the juice extracted with water or the sugar is extracted by diffusion. The juice is then clarified with lime and heated to kill enzymes. The resulting thin syrup is concentrated in a series of evaporators after which further water is removed by evaporation in vacuum containers. The resulting supersaturated solution is seeded with sugar crystals and the sugar crystallizes out, is separated from the fluid and dried. Molasses is a by-product of the process and the fibre from the stems, known as bagasse, is burned to provide energy for the sugar extraction process. The crystals of raw sugar have a sticky brown coating and can either be used as they are or can be bleached by sulphur dioxide or treated in a carbonation process to produce a whiter product."

                          Then this:

                          "Cane sugar requires further processing to provide the free-flowing white table sugar required by the consumer. The sugar may be transported in bulk to the country where it will be used and the refining process often takes place there. The first stage is known as affination and involves immersing the sugar crystals in a concentrated syrup which softens and removes the sticky brown coating without dissolving them. The crystals are then separated from the liquor and dissolved in water. The resulting syrup is either treated by a carbonation or a phosphatation process. Both involve the precipitation of a fine solid in the syrup and when this is filtered out, a lot of the impurities are removed at the same time. Removal of colour is achieved by either using a granular activated carbon or an ion-exchange resin. The sugar syrup is concentrated by boiling and then cooled and seeded with sugar crystals causing the sugar to crystallize out. The liquor is spun in a centrifuge and the white crystals are dried in hot air, ready to be packaged or used. The surplus liquor is made into refiners' molasses.[41] The International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis sets standards for the measurement of the purity of refined sugar, known as ICUMSA numbers; lower numbers indicate a higher level of purity in the refined sugar."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Read Mark's post today about Cholesterol (part 2), pay attention to item 10. After reading it, draw your own conclusions what effect sugar has on health...
                            "The problem with quoting someone on the Internet is, you never know if it's legit" - Abraham Lincoln

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Lukey View Post
                              This is getting a bit off topic guys, i'm not talking about fruit i'm talking about sucrose. I know that mark sisson and robb wolf say it's bad for you, and it wasn't available for us to eat regularly, but WHY is it bad. It's just glucose and fructose
                              Did you check out any of the links I posted? If not you should see Sugar the Bitter Truth.

                              Originally posted by Dirlot View Post
                              An interesting read Cut the Sugar - How to Build Muscle | Strength Training Workouts | Mass Gain Diet what is particularly interesting if accurate is the sugar consumption 100 years ago was about 4lbs per year now on average it is about 150lbs per year. In that kind of quantity it is definitely not good

                              A good watch as well Sugar the Bitter Truth Sugar: The Bitter Truth - YouTube and I have heard that Pure, White and Deadly is a good read and years ahead of its time.
                              Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
                              PS
                              Don't forget to play!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Lukey View Post
                                Theres nothing wrong with your post it's a good point. But it still doesn't explain why sugar is "unhealthy". Sure eating fruit is healthier because it of the vitamins and minerals is healthier, but that doesn't mean not eating them is unhealthy. Sugar doesn't have those minerals and vitamins, but that doesn't explain why it is bad for you. You can still get those minerals from somewhere else.
                                ... if you do. But fair enough. I get your point.

                                But there's what Neckhammer just wrote. Do you really want to put something in your mouth that's been through all that?

                                And as if all that weren't bad enough for you, what about the ecological impact? If you refine something down like that it keeps; it has a good shelf life. And this, as people like Weston Price and Vilhjalmur Stefansson pointed out long ago, means something that will keep without spoiling and can be traded over long distances, but that seems to wreak havoc on people's health wherever it goes. if you didn't know the mechanism for that and didn't understand why, well it still does. See Weston Price (passim):

                                Weston Price: Nutrition and Physical Degeneration; Table of Contents

                                Seriously. If you read that, if will blow your mind.

                                I said "ecologocal imapct". I forget the figure now, but I think Dr. Cate has said it takes 100 pounds of water to make one pound of sugar:

                                Deep Nutrition: Why Your Genes Need Traditional Food: 1: Amazon.co.uk: Catherine Shanahan MD, Luke Shanahan: Books

                                That's not sustainable.

                                Then there's Dr. Lustig's point. That's that all that sugar hitting your bloodstream fast overwhelms your system. There's no precedent for it in biological systems. If you eat the fruit, all the stuff that comes with the sugar slows its absorption down. That's the fibre, basically. Take that out, and it's getting into your bloodstream that much faster. Rocket-fuel. There's just no precedent in nature for that.
                                Last edited by Lewis; 08-30-2012, 01:21 PM. Reason: spelling

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X