Sugar as poison
Options
Replies
-
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
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions