Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: 60 minutes "is sugar toxic" page 2

  1. #11
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    890
    Shop Now
    Honey isn't any better. But your ancestors rarely ate it. In fact you can feed sugar water to humming birds but not honey water. That will mess them up. Don't feed honey to toddlers Infant botulism: How can it be prevented? - MayoClinic.com
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  2. #12
    TCates190's Avatar
    TCates190 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    SoFlo
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by healthy11 View Post
    I don't think it's all that ground breaking... we all know sugar is unhealthy and toxic. What people don't know is that grains and unhealthy and act the same way sugar does in the body along with all the anti-nutrients they contain. Why doesn't someone address this along with sugar? Grains are sugar, too.

    Those cancerous tumors with insulin receptors can get all the glocuse they need to grow from the 300-400 grams of "heart healthy" whole grains and beans that Americans will eat in place of the toxic sugar in their diet.
    it's not that it's so ground breaking, I just think its good that things like this are making it more main stream. Everyone has known sugar is bad, sure but it's always been just "it'll make you fat or give you diabetes." I think grains will, one day follow in this as people open their eyes.

  3. #13
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    8,720
    Wow, that one "sensible" lady in the video recommends 10 teaspoons of sugar a day as healthy?
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Highest squat: 167.5 x 2. Current Deadlift: 190 x 3

  4. #14
    TTBlue21's Avatar
    TTBlue21 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Del Boca Vista, FL
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by TCates190 View Post
    For some reason family members have to see it on tv before they believe us....sigh..I'm in the same boat.
    My parents thought I joined a cult; they were at ease when I explained the group would never consume Kool-Aid or any deviation of such a “toxic” drink.

  5. #15
    jimhensen's Avatar
    jimhensen is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    818
    lol, sorry, this video is such garbage.

    The study that the woman is explaining is laughable. They replaced 25% of someone's calories with sugary drinks and their health deteriorated? This proves that getting 25% of your calories from sugar is bad for you, which I doubt anyone is going to argue. If they added one can of soda per day to an otherwise reasonable diet and had similar results it would be interesting.

    Lustig's claim that replacing fat with sugar in foods has caused the obesity problem is an assertion that is impossible to prove statistically. Obesity is multi faceted and has a lot more to do with excess calories than mixing around macro nutrients.

    The cancer portion of the video says that sugar could cause a cancerous tumor to grow quicker. First of all, protein causes insulin spikes as well so you could make the argument that a piece of chicken would do something similar. Secondly you actually already HAVE TO HAVE CANCER for this to even be a concern. For anyone without a cancerous tumor, this has absolutely no bearing on their health. Basically the video is one sided and sensationalist.

  6. #16
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,150
    Quote Originally Posted by jimhensen View Post
    The cancer portion of the video says that sugar could cause a cancerous tumor to grow quicker. First of all, protein causes insulin spikes as well so you could make the argument that a piece of chicken would do something similar. Secondly you actually already HAVE TO HAVE CANCER for this to even be a concern. For anyone without a cancerous tumor, this has absolutely no bearing on their health. Basically the video is one sided and sensationalist.
    I haven't seen the video, but I've seen Lustig and I've seen some of the cancer research. From what I recall it is not all due to an isulinogenic response. Its simply that some tumors thrive on glucose if I remember correctly. And if these cancers proliferate on glucose it's not a huge leap of logic to see controlling that as a possible preventative. Perhaps not completely accurate, but in the sense that excess sugar causes a myriad of health issues what would be the harm?

  7. #17
    TTBlue21's Avatar
    TTBlue21 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Del Boca Vista, FL
    Posts
    117
    PrimalCon New York
    I too thought the actual study was lacking, however, I focused my attention on the piece detailing composition/ingredients of "whole, natural, healthy" foods. I am told all the time I am over the top for steering clear of cereal, wheat bread, ketchup, jelly, peanut butter, etc.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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