Sugar as poison
Options
Replies
-
-
hahahahahahaha, oh wait, you were serious, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!-1
-
_incogNEATo_ wrote: »TLDR
I read © 1975 and immediately stopped reading.
Why? Nothing written before 1976 is valid?0 -
janejellyroll 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?
Yes, can we please get someone with knowledge of nutrition and digestion to let us know if sugar will turn us into witches?
(This is a time-sensitive question, I kinda need to know before I eat my lunch).
I know several people who turn into witches if they don't get their sugar fix!0 -
So is sugar okay if I eat the sugar beet or sugar cane as is?
For anyone interested, you can get the book for free. I may d/l it just to read about the sugar-crazed witches.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »_incogNEATo_ wrote: »TLDR
I read © 1975 and immediately stopped reading.
Why? Nothing written before 1976 is valid?
In scientific terms...generally no.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."
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 1957.0 -
Depleted of life forces?
What the hell does that mean? Oh, yeah, nothing.0 -
-
I don't think the science is there yet to support the limits on added sugar. It'll be interesting to see if the research being done on sugar right now ends up supporting the recommendations to limit it or not...
But nutrition science seems overrated to me when you have dieticians recommending cans of coke as snacks so I'm sticking with what used to be considered common sense on this one. Eating sugar without restriction -- like we currently do as a society -- is disastrous for public health but cooking with small amounts of added sugar for flavor, the occasional dessert or small glass of fresh juice with breakfast is perfectly normal and healthy, in my opinion.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."
How about instead of providing excerpts from an outdated book, you just provide some current research?0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So are you all saying that micronutrients are not actually required to digest sugar? (I'm genuinely trying to understand this.)
Pretty much. And it's monosaccharides and disaccharides, if you want to be technical about it.
0 -
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.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »_incogNEATo_ wrote: »TLDR
I read © 1975 and immediately stopped reading.
Why? Nothing written before 1976 is valid?
Do you understand the scientific knowledge basically progresses? Each generation of scientists expands on knowledge from previous generations. I would be extremely careful when using sources from 1975 to make a point unless you have researched subsequent research in the field.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 opposite0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
when you find that study, come back and let us know and we can talk some more..
for now, I am calling complete and total garbage.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.
Lots of books are still in print and doing well on Amazon. They're fiction too.
Dr. Oz is still doing a brisk business as well. he's a charlatan also.
None of your points validate anything you are quoting. Accept what you are being told. You asked for answers and you are being given answers and you are refuting them with nonsense.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?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »_incogNEATo_ wrote: »TLDR
I read © 1975 and immediately stopped reading.
Why? Nothing written before 1976 is valid?
TLDR... read only the title...
In just to say, if sugar were poison, I'd be dead.
/thread0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions