Sugar as poison
Replies
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The book is still in print and doing a nice trade on Amazon, incidentally.
Because it sells on Amazon that makes it Scientifically Valid?0 -
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.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The point here is this: the book you are quoting from is completely outdated. Science has proven the author is wrong. Stop reading it and find new sources to learn from. When researching, you don't want sources from 1957.
The book is still in print and doing a nice trade on Amazon, incidentally.
Interestingly, there is also a section in the book about insulin resistance, which as far as I know wasn't a hot topic until very recently.
Also still in print: the Malleus Maleficarum. It's a good thing too, because we need something to help us deal with all these witches.0 -
I am ashamed of myself for clicking on this thread. Seriously, I feel dirty.0
-
snoringcat wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Okay, yeah, ha ha, very funny etc... But is there anyone with some knowledge of nutrition and digestion that can comment on the validity (or otherwise) of what was written?
It's absolute bollox. My qualifications - BSc(Hons), MSc, Biochemistry
+1
Total senseless twattery. (Quals, since we are doing that: B.Sc. Biomedical Engineering, minor in cell biology, MSc. in the same, DEA in the same, etc...)
Yes, sugar can be a toxin but not within the confines of a normal diet.0 -
The quack author's definition of poison is highly personal and unconventional. Here's a Canadian definition:
Section 64 of CEPA defines a substance as "toxic" if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that:...constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
Canadian Standards for Various Chemical Contaminants in Foods
Any substance, taken in sufficient quantities, can be dangerous. But the amount of sugar that would have to be consumed to be dangerous (excepting diabetics of course) is frankly, mind-boggling. It would likely outstrip the volume required to experience water toxicity.0 -
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..
0 -
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.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Okay, yeah, ha ha, very funny etc... But is there anyone with some knowledge of nutrition and digestion that can comment on the validity (or otherwise) of what was written?
Well we could call the original publication researchers, or the author of the book, but they all died about 20 years ago...
Seriously we are digging up studies from before many of today's common scientific techniques were even pioneered? Before the human genome was mapped?
I also found a study that said the Earth was flat. Can anyone comment on that?
<--- Not a physical geologist so clearly not qualified to comment.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »so let me get this right OP ...you are saying that if I have hit my micronutrients for the day, and then I eat added sugar that the sugar then drains of said micros and I need to consume more to make up for them???
is that really what you are saying?
sugar, the new vampire....
Yeah, basically, I think that's what he is saying. So are you all saying that micronutrients are not actually required to digest sugar? (I'm genuinely trying to understand this.)
I found a link to a longer extract from the book, and this is another section from it:
"Sugars lack the vitamins and minerals required for their own metabolism. To be metabolized, sugars must draw on our body's stores of these nutrients. The more sugars you eat, the more vitamins and minerals you need.
It can leach B, C, D vitamins, and those minerals:
calcium, phosphorous, iron, selenium, zinc, chromium, vanadium, tin, boron, bismuth, rear earth elements etc. from our teeth, bones, and tissues.
As these are depleted, our body becomes less able to carry out other functions that require minerals and vitamins to be present: to metabolize fats and cholesterol; to convert cholesterol into bile acids for removal from our body through the stool; or to burn-off excess fats as heat or increased activity. As a result , our cholesterol level rises; our metabolic rate goes down; fats burn more slowly; gall stones are crystallizing in or liver; we feel less like exercising, and our weight is increasing. We have already started walking our way to cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases."
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?0 -
I ate too much chocolate last night and had this strange hankering to want to ride broomsticks, maybe there is truth to this sugar witchery after all!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
The point here is this: the book you are quoting from is completely outdated. Science has proven the author is wrong. Stop reading it and find new sources to learn from. When researching, you don't want sources from 1957.
The book is still in print and doing a nice trade on Amazon, incidentally.
Interestingly, there is also a section in the book about insulin resistance, which as far as I know wasn't a hot topic until very recently.
Also still in print: the Malleus Maleficarum. It's a good thing too, because we need something to help us deal with all these witches.
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.
All you eat is candy? Really?0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »_incogNEATo_ wrote: »TLDR
I read © 1975 and immediately stopped reading.
Why? Nothing written before 1976 is valid?
If no one since came to the same conclusions, then indeed.0 -
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.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.
And to repeat...are "you" eating nothing but hard candy all day every day?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.
yeah, because someone is getting their sugar by eating only candy, all the time. The other minerals and nutrients come from the other food they eat during the day, darlin.
0 -
Ugh.
Obvious troll is obvious.0 -
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: »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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions