Sugar as poison
Replies
-
lilaclovebird wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »Can someone please tell me what these "life forces" are that my sugar has been deprived of?
Midichlorians.
I lost it. I was keeping it pretty serious through this WHOLE thread and you got me busting out laughing. My boss now thinks I'm a nutcase.
Hey!
Midichlorians exist!
They are a symbiot bacteria in certain ticks. Unique quality is that they eat sugar energy stores (aka mitochondria in their host).0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lilaclovebird wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »Can someone please tell me what these "life forces" are that my sugar has been deprived of?
Midichlorians.
I lost it. I was keeping it pretty serious through this WHOLE thread and you got me busting out laughing. My boss now thinks I'm a nutcase.
Hey!
Midichlorians exist!
They are a symbiot bacteria in certain ticks. Unique quality is that they eat sugar energy stores (aka mitochondria in their host).
This alone proves that sugar is poison. Bacteria = bad. Ticks = bad. Bacteria thriving of sugar in tick mitochondria = POISON.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The whole idea that nature "creates food" is classical anthropomorphism of the world around us - it's quite common, and incorrect, to think of nature as an organizing force intended to "provide sustenance". We evolved within an environment and adapted to take energy from a variety of life forms; it isn't an organizational entity of providence.
This is my thought exactly. Nature is not sentient! It's not this loving mother figure, cradling us in her arms while we suckle her bosom.
Nature will eff you up.
I don't know that she's not sentient. Every time a population gets too large, some new and terrible disease comes along to bring it back some.... now that humans keep coming up with cures, we are getting more and more violent and killing ourselves. hm......
This thread is way too existential for me.
But we seem to have lost OP.
0 -
Nothing like 40 year old "research" to try and prove an invalid point...0
-
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn0
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The whole idea that nature "creates food" is classical anthropomorphism of the world around us - it's quite common, and incorrect, to think of nature as an organizing force intended to "provide sustenance". We evolved within an environment and adapted to take energy from a variety of life forms; it isn't an organizational entity of providence.
This is my thought exactly. Nature is not sentient! It's not this loving mother figure, cradling us in her arms while we suckle her bosom.
Nature will eff you up.
I don't know that she's not sentient. Every time a population gets too large, some new and terrible disease comes along to bring it back some.... now that humans keep coming up with cures, we are getting more and more violent and killing ourselves. hm......
This thread is way too existential for me.
But we seem to have lost OP.
OP be like:
0 -
Was that Klingon? If so, I'll have to consult my dictionary at home later.0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Thoughts?
Initially I gave you only about a C+ on the trolling scale, but you seem to have done a decent job, and it's not even Friday.
Congrats.
Weird goal, but you seem to have achieved it. Maybe one day you'll actually express an opinion you hold sincerely.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »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'.
Nature does not create foods for human consumption. The foods that we eat have other purposes than just food for humans. For example, a fruit's sole purpose is to spread the seeds of the plant. Yes, some of them may have evolved to be tasty enough for animals to eat them and spread the seeds with their poop.
We have streamlined all of the fruits and vegetables that we can buy at a grocery store to meet our needs. Nothing that we eat is consumed as nature "meant for them to be." Nature don't give a ^$&! if their fruit meets our nutritional needs or not - nature only cares that more little baby plants are born to carry on the species.
you mean mother nature does not love me?????
6 mass extinctions on this planet so far, and we are mid #7? I think Mother Nature couldn't care less.
what if I get her some flowers for mothers day?
Right.... Cut them right off her body and give 'em back.... severed little bodies......
OMG, this^^0 -
-
You do realize that sugar comes from a plant, right?
Here we have a sugar cane in it's natural habitat:
Cassava, peach pits, belladonna are all poisonous.
sugar canes are not.0 -
Angel_Grove_ wrote: »Nothing like 40 year old "research" to try and prove an invalid point...
It is really ideal for the purpose.
0 -
Um.... Duh.
I've never actually read it - it's on my list of books I have at home to read some day.
And now I get it. I was just trying to ignore it. I was thinking more "Candyman," at first.0 -
0 -
Oh wait. Better gifs to replace the popcorn eating since this is a sugar thread after all...
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I don't think it's a crazy idea that nature creates foods as they're 'meant to be'.
Yes, that's a crazy idea.
Not only does it require a particular theological POV, but the take away would be that you are better off limiting yourself to food that has not been manipulated or changed or even raised by man.
Good luck with that.0 -
Sugar is poison? I better expel my cotton candy then.
0 -
So last year I was reading how sugar was poison, so I decided to use the last of my refined white sugar to kill off some ants... You can just imagine my surprise when, not only did the ants NOT die, I got MORE ANTS!
I just can't figure it out...0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »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.
So you don't understand the reports on modern science but propogate snippets of fear mongering from 40 years ago?0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »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'.
You know what this is like? Okay, I'm a vegetarian, and you know how they say to combine beans/legumes and a starch for a complete protein? I don't need to eat them at the same time to do that. I can eat them in the same day.
Even IF the body needs these miracle nutrients to break down the sugar, it will get them from other foods in the diet consumed during the same day.
No one eats a diet full of one single food or eats any food in isolation. Digestion in the intestines takes a while. There's plenty of time for things to work together.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »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.
So you don't understand the reports on modern science but propogate snippets of fear mongering from 40 years ago?
And now she has nothing left to say, too. Hmm...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I don't think it's a crazy idea that nature creates foods as they're 'meant to be'.
Yes, that's a crazy idea.
Not only does it require a particular theological POV, but the take away would be that you are better off limiting yourself to food that has not been manipulated or changed or even raised by man.
Good luck with that.
Agreed - nearly everything you eat has been purposely modified by man by selective breeding... nearly all fruits and vegetables and most of the tasty animals.0 -
Or better yet…
0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »Can someone please tell me what these "life forces" are that my sugar has been deprived of?
Midichlorians.
Damn this thread for not happening two days ago.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »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.
So you don't understand the reports on modern science but propogate snippets of fear mongering from 40 years ago?
Fear mongering is easy, but I do have to give a thumbs up that they at least admitted they didn't understand it. It makes understanding that taking a small excerpt that was the part they found that validated the topic they wanted to throw into our midst again was probably a lot of research for them. Good job!0 -
Dear Posters,
I wanted to offer a brief explanation for the locking of this thread.
The forum guidelines include this item:
15. Divisive Topics Are Better Suited For Groups, Not the Main Forums
Divisive topics and posts, particularly those that seek input from or are relevant only to a select group of users, are better placed within an appropriate Group rather than the Main Forums. For example, topics relevant to only one religion should not be placed on the main forums but rather within a group related to that religion.
If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
At our discretion, this locked thread may be deleted entirely in the near future.
Best regards,
Michelle
MyFitnessPal Staff0
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