Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Sugar Strikes Back!!! page

  1. #1
    SkinnyMochaJoe's Avatar
    SkinnyMochaJoe is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    16

    Sugar Strikes Back!!!

    Shop Now
    In the seemingly never ending battle for your hearts and minds, between the forces of Good(Reason) and Evil(Conventional wisdom), Sugar, one of the mightiest warriors on the side of evil, has undergone yet another transformation, making him even more powerful! Will the forces of good be able to muster the strength to defeat him? Find out next time on, Marks Daily Apple Z!

    http://www.squidoo.com/trehalose

  2. #2
    Pandadude's Avatar
    Pandadude is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    612
    lols sounds so ridiculous, because it is broken down in the small intestine it doesn't cause as big an insulin response and then disregard all the other harmful effects of sugar and call it healthy...

  3. #3
    Adventure8410's Avatar
    Adventure8410 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ohio and Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,429
    Looking at that makes me sad.....you think the mere fact that it still ruins your teeth should be a clue that it is bad for you. Also that they cite fungi, plants and invertebrate animals as organisms that can synthesize it (last time I checked humans were none of those, but CW has a way of twisting things around on me).

  4. #4
    DarthFriendly's Avatar
    DarthFriendly is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,843
    So a year or two ago I was on an aquaintence's blog where he'd reposted/linked to some of the studies that cite HFCS as being the devil, and this poster shows up at first trying to sound 'reasonable' and saying that 'the jury's still out on HFCS' and that it really wasn't so bad, it was just being unfairly maligned, etc. Well after scratching the surface of this poster's credentials it turns out they were a PR flack from a corn industry group LOL. The battle rages on. (Or "What goofy crap will they try next?")

  5. #5
    kennelmom's Avatar
    kennelmom is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Upstate of SC
    Posts
    1,328
    All these sugar "alternatives" remind me of the patches, gum, lozenges, smokeless cigarettes and all the other "alternative" nicotine delivery systems designed for smokers. At a certain point, you have to decide whether you want a less than healthy substance in your life or you don't. And if you do, to what degree. They touched on this in the recent paleolithic solutions podcast (the original question was about coconut sugar and whether that was "good")...ultimately, sugar is sugar is sugar and they all have a downside you have to consider.
    Last edited by kennelmom; 04-08-2010 at 05:44 AM.
    Heather and the hounds - Make a Fast Friend, Adopt a Greyhound!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    30
    Let's not also forget that most things, extracted from their whole part, can cause the body harm. For example, Fructose is not necessarily the devil in it's pure form/ original package (the orange had fiber & enzymes to help your liver process it), but separate it out and it's a poison (even organic, freshly squeezed OJ).

  7. #7
    Molecular Grokologist's Avatar
    Molecular Grokologist is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    303
    Actually, early humans probably got a fair amount of trehalose seasonally picking hibernating insects off of trees when the first real frosts started. Insects use it as a natural antifreeze, which they can get away with because the two glucose subunits are arranged in such a way that they can't glycate anything. Not only does it only contain glucose (which isn't so bad for many people) rather than half fructose, but we don't have tons of trehalase enzymes in our guts (although this would probably change if you ate lots of trehalose), so it enters the bloodstream slowly. In addition, for reasons that are poorly understood, trehalose promotes autophagy (protein recycling and prioritization) in mammals.

    I'm actually kind of optimistic about trehalose.

    edit: This stuff about it being an antioxidant is stupid, though. It'll act like an antioxidant in vitro (in a test tube), but it's going to be glucose when it gets into the blood, which is a mild oxidant.
    Last edited by Molecular Grokologist; 04-08-2010 at 11:45 AM.
    Give me liberty. Exploration of other options will be vigorously discouraged.

    Wondering something sciencey? Ask me in my Ask a Biochemist Thread

  8. #8
    ericfoster3's Avatar
    ericfoster3 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    147
    According to this news item, sugar doesn't need a substitute because it is not related to obesity.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100408/..._obesity_sugar

    Yea, right...

  9. #9
    Molecular Grokologist's Avatar
    Molecular Grokologist is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    303
    That argument is particularly stupid. "Nevermind that the two are chemically identical except for the fact that one requires a small, extremely efficient chemical reaction before it can be absorbed, noooooo, they're completely different in their effects."
    Give me liberty. Exploration of other options will be vigorously discouraged.

    Wondering something sciencey? Ask me in my Ask a Biochemist Thread

  10. #10
    DarthFriendly's Avatar
    DarthFriendly is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,843
    The title of this tread would be totally awesome if it were "Sugar Strikes Back...From Beyond the Grave!"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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