the evil of sugar
Replies
-
slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »I'm waiting for Mercola ... that quack always gets used as a source in these types of threads.
processed sugar has no nutritional value whatsoever
It is a carbohydrate, which is a nutrient. It has calories, which is a characteristic of a nutrient.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »“If you already have a lot of sugar in your system, then what you just digested will form either fat or glycogen, the storage form of glucose that’s used for quick energy. It doesn’t matter if it’s junk food or fruit.” ... your earlier link.
It is noteworthy that none of the links or evidence you provided come from the places you said I should look. While you're there, try to assess the difference in rat and human studies ... actual tests and metadata reviews ... and what is truly applicable to the human body. Look for words such as "might" and "may" in the abstract since those are not indicators of proof.
that is not my link. nothing is 'proved', evidence or findings can still only suggest an outcome so might or may are standard terminiology in journals, im not sure i get your point there.
0 -
slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »“If you already have a lot of sugar in your system, then what you just digested will form either fat or glycogen, the storage form of glucose that’s used for quick energy. It doesn’t matter if it’s junk food or fruit.” ... your earlier link.
It is noteworthy that none of the links or evidence you provided come from the places you said I should look. While you're there, try to assess the difference in rat and human studies ... actual tests and metadata reviews ... and what is truly applicable to the human body. Look for words such as "might" and "may" in the abstract since those are not indicators of proof.
that is not my link. nothing is 'proved', evidence or findings can still only suggest an outcome so might or may are standard terminiology in journals, im not sure i get your point there.
Are you now denying posting that link to support your position?
0 -
-
slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »I'm waiting for Mercola ... that quack always gets used as a source in these types of threads.
processed sugar has no nutritional value whatsoever
It is a carbohydrate, which is a nutrient. It has calories, which is a characteristic of a nutrient.
It's a MACROnutrient at its core.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »“If you already have a lot of sugar in your system, then what you just digested will form either fat or glycogen, the storage form of glucose that’s used for quick energy. It doesn’t matter if it’s junk food or fruit.” ... your earlier link.
It is noteworthy that none of the links or evidence you provided come from the places you said I should look. While you're there, try to assess the difference in rat and human studies ... actual tests and metadata reviews ... and what is truly applicable to the human body. Look for words such as "might" and "may" in the abstract since those are not indicators of proof.
that is not my link. nothing is 'proved', evidence or findings can still only suggest an outcome so might or may are standard terminiology in journals, im not sure i get your point there.
Are you now denying posting that link to support your position?
please read back through the conversation and you will see i havnt posted a link.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
The blog actually blames obesity, not the sugars directly. Again, science matters. Even the WHO's logic for limiting refined sugars isn't because they are inherently bad it is because of the caloric impact.
I actually posted this link because of the metabolism info on sugar, however I missed where it blamed being fat on anything........and yes the word is fat, pretty it up all you want with the "obese" word it's still plain fat0 -
slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »“If you already have a lot of sugar in your system, then what you just digested will form either fat or glycogen, the storage form of glucose that’s used for quick energy. It doesn’t matter if it’s junk food or fruit.” ... your earlier link.
It is noteworthy that none of the links or evidence you provided come from the places you said I should look. While you're there, try to assess the difference in rat and human studies ... actual tests and metadata reviews ... and what is truly applicable to the human body. Look for words such as "might" and "may" in the abstract since those are not indicators of proof.
that is not my link. nothing is 'proved', evidence or findings can still only suggest an outcome so might or may are standard terminiology in journals, im not sure i get your point there.
Are you now denying posting that link to support your position?
please read back through the conversation and you will see i havnt posted a link.
You did post a link in the initial post ... just not that one. My bad. Those agreeing with you post things as flawed as your video link so I don't even bother trying to keep you differentiated.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »“If you already have a lot of sugar in your system, then what you just digested will form either fat or glycogen, the storage form of glucose that’s used for quick energy. It doesn’t matter if it’s junk food or fruit.” ... your earlier link.
It is noteworthy that none of the links or evidence you provided come from the places you said I should look. While you're there, try to assess the difference in rat and human studies ... actual tests and metadata reviews ... and what is truly applicable to the human body. Look for words such as "might" and "may" in the abstract since those are not indicators of proof.
that is not my link. nothing is 'proved', evidence or findings can still only suggest an outcome so might or may are standard terminiology in journals, im not sure i get your point there.
Are you now denying posting that link to support your position?
please read back through the conversation and you will see i havnt posted a link.
You did post a link in the initial post ... just not that one. My bad. Those agreeing with you post things as flawed as your video link so I don't even bother trying to keep you differentiated.
i posted a video that i thought may be of interest to people on here because it regards health - people are allowed to have their own opinions and form their own evaluation of the evidence presented. it is your bad and comes across as slightly arrogant.
0 -
Good Lord. What ever happened to moderation in all things? Foods aren't evil. It's our behavior and the choices that we make that are the problem with those of us who have struggled with fat (or if you prefer, obesity). Refined sugar and white flour and potatoes are not evil if you limit your intake of them and your diet is otherwise full of good food choices. And someone who chooses to use refined sugar or white flour isn't evil for doing so. There's no such thing as the Food Devil, or Food Hell. Why do so many of you people want to make your struggles with your appetites a moral struggle?0
-
Good Lord. What ever happened to moderation in all things? Foods aren't evil. It's our behavior and the choices that we make that are the problem with those of us who have struggled with fat (or if you prefer, obesity). Refined sugar and white flour and potatoes are not evil if you limit your intake of them and your diet is otherwise full of good food choices. And someone who chooses to use refined sugar or white flour isn't evil for doing so. There's no such thing as the Food Devil, or Food Hell. Why do so many of you people want to make your struggles with your appetites a moral struggle?
i have not stated in my post to cut it out, i even said i still enjoy refined sugar in moderation - i used the phrase 'cut down'. my title is probably misleading as to what im trying to do here - post a link to a doc i found interesting and thought others might too.
0 -
slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »“If you already have a lot of sugar in your system, then what you just digested will form either fat or glycogen, the storage form of glucose that’s used for quick energy. It doesn’t matter if it’s junk food or fruit.” ... your earlier link.
It is noteworthy that none of the links or evidence you provided come from the places you said I should look. While you're there, try to assess the difference in rat and human studies ... actual tests and metadata reviews ... and what is truly applicable to the human body. Look for words such as "might" and "may" in the abstract since those are not indicators of proof.
that is not my link. nothing is 'proved', evidence or findings can still only suggest an outcome so might or may are standard terminiology in journals, im not sure i get your point there.
Are you now denying posting that link to support your position?
please read back through the conversation and you will see i havnt posted a link.
You did post a link in the initial post ... just not that one. My bad. Those agreeing with you post things as flawed as your video link so I don't even bother trying to keep you differentiated.
i posted a video that i thought may be of interest to people on here because it regards health - people are allowed to have their own opinions and form their own evaluation of the evidence presented. it is your bad and comes across as slightly arrogant.
Your claim of not posting a link in this thread comes across as dishonest and wrong. Of course, I can't blame you for wanting to distance yourself from that flawed video.
Let's look at the logic you've presented here ... you "enjoy refined sugar", something you call a poison ... a logic failure.0 -
You need to edit your title thenslowandsteady44 wrote: »Good Lord. What ever happened to moderation in all things? Foods aren't evil. It's our behavior and the choices that we make that are the problem with those of us who have struggled with fat (or if you prefer, obesity). Refined sugar and white flour and potatoes are not evil if you limit your intake of them and your diet is otherwise full of good food choices. And someone who chooses to use refined sugar or white flour isn't evil for doing so. There's no such thing as the Food Devil, or Food Hell. Why do so many of you people want to make your struggles with your appetites a moral struggle?
i have not stated in my post to cut it out, i even said i still enjoy refined sugar in moderation - i used the phrase 'cut down'. my title is probably misleading as to what im trying to do here - post a link to a doc i found interesting and thought others might too.
0 -
slowandsteady44 wrote: »
Actually I find it really sad that people actively choose to live in irrational fear and go searching for and promoting dumb "documentaries" to reinforce those fears.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »“If you already have a lot of sugar in your system, then what you just digested will form either fat or glycogen, the storage form of glucose that’s used for quick energy. It doesn’t matter if it’s junk food or fruit.” ... your earlier link.
It is noteworthy that none of the links or evidence you provided come from the places you said I should look. While you're there, try to assess the difference in rat and human studies ... actual tests and metadata reviews ... and what is truly applicable to the human body. Look for words such as "might" and "may" in the abstract since those are not indicators of proof.
that is not my link. nothing is 'proved', evidence or findings can still only suggest an outcome so might or may are standard terminiology in journals, im not sure i get your point there.
Are you now denying posting that link to support your position?
please read back through the conversation and you will see i havnt posted a link.
You did post a link in the initial post ... just not that one. My bad. Those agreeing with you post things as flawed as your video link so I don't even bother trying to keep you differentiated.
i posted a video that i thought may be of interest to people on here because it regards health - people are allowed to have their own opinions and form their own evaluation of the evidence presented. it is your bad and comes across as slightly arrogant.
Your claim of not posting a link in this thread comes across as dishonest and wrong. Of course, I can't blame you for wanting to distance yourself from that flawed video.
i said i didnt post the link you claimed me to have posted. i didnt claim not to have posted the video, it is the reason i made a post. again, not sure what your point is.
0 -
slowandsteady44 wrote: »
Actually I find it really sad that people actively choose to live in irrational fear and go searching and promoting dumb "documentaries" to reinforce those fears.
im not promoting anything, promoting implies that people cant use their own intellect in deciding whether the doc is dumb or not. i thought it might be of interest, if you dont think so thats fine.
0 -
slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »“If you already have a lot of sugar in your system, then what you just digested will form either fat or glycogen, the storage form of glucose that’s used for quick energy. It doesn’t matter if it’s junk food or fruit.” ... your earlier link.
It is noteworthy that none of the links or evidence you provided come from the places you said I should look. While you're there, try to assess the difference in rat and human studies ... actual tests and metadata reviews ... and what is truly applicable to the human body. Look for words such as "might" and "may" in the abstract since those are not indicators of proof.
that is not my link. nothing is 'proved', evidence or findings can still only suggest an outcome so might or may are standard terminiology in journals, im not sure i get your point there.
Are you now denying posting that link to support your position?
please read back through the conversation and you will see i havnt posted a link.
You did post a link in the initial post ... just not that one. My bad. Those agreeing with you post things as flawed as your video link so I don't even bother trying to keep you differentiated.
i posted a video that i thought may be of interest to people on here because it regards health - people are allowed to have their own opinions and form their own evaluation of the evidence presented. it is your bad and comes across as slightly arrogant.
Your claim of not posting a link in this thread comes across as dishonest and wrong. Of course, I can't blame you for wanting to distance yourself from that flawed video.
i said i didnt post the link you claimed me to have posted. i didnt claim not to have posted the video, it is the reason i made a post. again, not sure what your point is.
" you will see i havnt posted a link." ... your exact words. Not claiming you didn't post that link .. that you didn't post a link .. which you did.
I love watching people contradict themselves over and over and your self contradicting posts are the only enjoyment in this thread.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
You need to edit your title thenslowandsteady44 wrote: »Good Lord. What ever happened to moderation in all things? Foods aren't evil. It's our behavior and the choices that we make that are the problem with those of us who have struggled with fat (or if you prefer, obesity). Refined sugar and white flour and potatoes are not evil if you limit your intake of them and your diet is otherwise full of good food choices. And someone who chooses to use refined sugar or white flour isn't evil for doing so. There's no such thing as the Food Devil, or Food Hell. Why do so many of you people want to make your struggles with your appetites a moral struggle?
i have not stated in my post to cut it out, i even said i still enjoy refined sugar in moderation - i used the phrase 'cut down'. my title is probably misleading as to what im trying to do here - post a link to a doc i found interesting and thought others might too.
i might just do that, because im getting alot of flack for what i thought some people might find interesting.
0 -
slowandsteady44 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »
You need to edit your title thenslowandsteady44 wrote: »Good Lord. What ever happened to moderation in all things? Foods aren't evil. It's our behavior and the choices that we make that are the problem with those of us who have struggled with fat (or if you prefer, obesity). Refined sugar and white flour and potatoes are not evil if you limit your intake of them and your diet is otherwise full of good food choices. And someone who chooses to use refined sugar or white flour isn't evil for doing so. There's no such thing as the Food Devil, or Food Hell. Why do so many of you people want to make your struggles with your appetites a moral struggle?
i have not stated in my post to cut it out, i even said i still enjoy refined sugar in moderation - i used the phrase 'cut down'. my title is probably misleading as to what im trying to do here - post a link to a doc i found interesting and thought others might too.
i might just do that, because im getting alot of flack for what i thought some people might find interesting.
The threads like these are a daily thing, so incoming flak will be laid. Sugar is not poison nor evil.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »“If you already have a lot of sugar in your system, then what you just digested will form either fat or glycogen, the storage form of glucose that’s used for quick energy. It doesn’t matter if it’s junk food or fruit.” ... your earlier link.
It is noteworthy that none of the links or evidence you provided come from the places you said I should look. While you're there, try to assess the difference in rat and human studies ... actual tests and metadata reviews ... and what is truly applicable to the human body. Look for words such as "might" and "may" in the abstract since those are not indicators of proof.
that is not my link. nothing is 'proved', evidence or findings can still only suggest an outcome so might or may are standard terminiology in journals, im not sure i get your point there.
Are you now denying posting that link to support your position?
please read back through the conversation and you will see i havnt posted a link.
You did post a link in the initial post ... just not that one. My bad. Those agreeing with you post things as flawed as your video link so I don't even bother trying to keep you differentiated.
i posted a video that i thought may be of interest to people on here because it regards health - people are allowed to have their own opinions and form their own evaluation of the evidence presented. it is your bad and comes across as slightly arrogant.
Your claim of not posting a link in this thread comes across as dishonest and wrong. Of course, I can't blame you for wanting to distance yourself from that flawed video.
i said i didnt post the link you claimed me to have posted. i didnt claim not to have posted the video, it is the reason i made a post. again, not sure what your point is.
" you will see i havnt posted a link." ... your exact words. Not claiming you didn't post that link .. that you didn't post a link .. which you did.
I love watching people contradict themselves over and over and your self contradicting posts are the only enjoyment in this thread.
please put that into context of the link that you were referring to in the first place, the mercola link, and what you obviously know i was referring to. childish.
0 -
I provided the mercola link and your welcome0
-
slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »“If you already have a lot of sugar in your system, then what you just digested will form either fat or glycogen, the storage form of glucose that’s used for quick energy. It doesn’t matter if it’s junk food or fruit.” ... your earlier link.
It is noteworthy that none of the links or evidence you provided come from the places you said I should look. While you're there, try to assess the difference in rat and human studies ... actual tests and metadata reviews ... and what is truly applicable to the human body. Look for words such as "might" and "may" in the abstract since those are not indicators of proof.
that is not my link. nothing is 'proved', evidence or findings can still only suggest an outcome so might or may are standard terminiology in journals, im not sure i get your point there.
Are you now denying posting that link to support your position?
please read back through the conversation and you will see i havnt posted a link.
You did post a link in the initial post ... just not that one. My bad. Those agreeing with you post things as flawed as your video link so I don't even bother trying to keep you differentiated.
i posted a video that i thought may be of interest to people on here because it regards health - people are allowed to have their own opinions and form their own evaluation of the evidence presented. it is your bad and comes across as slightly arrogant.
Your claim of not posting a link in this thread comes across as dishonest and wrong. Of course, I can't blame you for wanting to distance yourself from that flawed video.
i said i didnt post the link you claimed me to have posted. i didnt claim not to have posted the video, it is the reason i made a post. again, not sure what your point is.
" you will see i havnt posted a link." ... your exact words. Not claiming you didn't post that link .. that you didn't post a link .. which you did.
I love watching people contradict themselves over and over and your self contradicting posts are the only enjoyment in this thread.
please put that into context of the link that you were referring to in the first place, the mercola link, and what you obviously know i was referring to. childish.
I didn't link to anything from or about Mercola. In fact, I can honestly state that I have not posted a link in this thread.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »“If you already have a lot of sugar in your system, then what you just digested will form either fat or glycogen, the storage form of glucose that’s used for quick energy. It doesn’t matter if it’s junk food or fruit.” ... your earlier link.
It is noteworthy that none of the links or evidence you provided come from the places you said I should look. While you're there, try to assess the difference in rat and human studies ... actual tests and metadata reviews ... and what is truly applicable to the human body. Look for words such as "might" and "may" in the abstract since those are not indicators of proof.
that is not my link. nothing is 'proved', evidence or findings can still only suggest an outcome so might or may are standard terminiology in journals, im not sure i get your point there.
Are you now denying posting that link to support your position?
please read back through the conversation and you will see i havnt posted a link.
You did post a link in the initial post ... just not that one. My bad. Those agreeing with you post things as flawed as your video link so I don't even bother trying to keep you differentiated.
i posted a video that i thought may be of interest to people on here because it regards health - people are allowed to have their own opinions and form their own evaluation of the evidence presented. it is your bad and comes across as slightly arrogant.
Your claim of not posting a link in this thread comes across as dishonest and wrong. Of course, I can't blame you for wanting to distance yourself from that flawed video.
i said i didnt post the link you claimed me to have posted. i didnt claim not to have posted the video, it is the reason i made a post. again, not sure what your point is.
" you will see i havnt posted a link." ... your exact words. Not claiming you didn't post that link .. that you didn't post a link .. which you did.
I love watching people contradict themselves over and over and your self contradicting posts are the only enjoyment in this thread.
please put that into context of the link that you were referring to in the first place, the mercola link, and what you obviously know i was referring to. childish.
I didn't link to anything from or about Mercola. In fact, I can honestly state that I have not posted a link in this thread.
i didnt say you did, but you referred to it.
0 -
slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »“If you already have a lot of sugar in your system, then what you just digested will form either fat or glycogen, the storage form of glucose that’s used for quick energy. It doesn’t matter if it’s junk food or fruit.” ... your earlier link.
It is noteworthy that none of the links or evidence you provided come from the places you said I should look. While you're there, try to assess the difference in rat and human studies ... actual tests and metadata reviews ... and what is truly applicable to the human body. Look for words such as "might" and "may" in the abstract since those are not indicators of proof.
that is not my link. nothing is 'proved', evidence or findings can still only suggest an outcome so might or may are standard terminiology in journals, im not sure i get your point there.
Are you now denying posting that link to support your position?
please read back through the conversation and you will see i havnt posted a link.
You did post a link in the initial post ... just not that one. My bad. Those agreeing with you post things as flawed as your video link so I don't even bother trying to keep you differentiated.
i posted a video that i thought may be of interest to people on here because it regards health - people are allowed to have their own opinions and form their own evaluation of the evidence presented. it is your bad and comes across as slightly arrogant.
Your claim of not posting a link in this thread comes across as dishonest and wrong. Of course, I can't blame you for wanting to distance yourself from that flawed video.
i said i didnt post the link you claimed me to have posted. i didnt claim not to have posted the video, it is the reason i made a post. again, not sure what your point is.
" you will see i havnt posted a link." ... your exact words. Not claiming you didn't post that link .. that you didn't post a link .. which you did.
I love watching people contradict themselves over and over and your self contradicting posts are the only enjoyment in this thread.
please put that into context of the link that you were referring to in the first place, the mercola link, and what you obviously know i was referring to. childish.
I didn't link to anything from or about Mercola. In fact, I can honestly state that I have not posted a link in this thread.
i didnt say you did, but you referred to it.
How could I refer to a link that was provided after my post invoking his name?0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »“If you already have a lot of sugar in your system, then what you just digested will form either fat or glycogen, the storage form of glucose that’s used for quick energy. It doesn’t matter if it’s junk food or fruit.” ... your earlier link.
It is noteworthy that none of the links or evidence you provided come from the places you said I should look. While you're there, try to assess the difference in rat and human studies ... actual tests and metadata reviews ... and what is truly applicable to the human body. Look for words such as "might" and "may" in the abstract since those are not indicators of proof.
that is not my link. nothing is 'proved', evidence or findings can still only suggest an outcome so might or may are standard terminiology in journals, im not sure i get your point there.
Are you now denying posting that link to support your position?
please read back through the conversation and you will see i havnt posted a link.
You did post a link in the initial post ... just not that one. My bad. Those agreeing with you post things as flawed as your video link so I don't even bother trying to keep you differentiated.
i posted a video that i thought may be of interest to people on here because it regards health - people are allowed to have their own opinions and form their own evaluation of the evidence presented. it is your bad and comes across as slightly arrogant.
Your claim of not posting a link in this thread comes across as dishonest and wrong. Of course, I can't blame you for wanting to distance yourself from that flawed video.
i said i didnt post the link you claimed me to have posted. i didnt claim not to have posted the video, it is the reason i made a post. again, not sure what your point is.
" you will see i havnt posted a link." ... your exact words. Not claiming you didn't post that link .. that you didn't post a link .. which you did.
I love watching people contradict themselves over and over and your self contradicting posts are the only enjoyment in this thread.
please put that into context of the link that you were referring to in the first place, the mercola link, and what you obviously know i was referring to. childish.
I didn't link to anything from or about Mercola. In fact, I can honestly state that I have not posted a link in this thread.
i didnt say you did, but you referred to it.
How could I refer to a link that was provided after my post invoking his name?
ok then, really enjoyed this futile/pointless argument.
0 -
I provided the link with the tin foil hat I'm wearing. Sorry, my bad.0
-
slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »“If you already have a lot of sugar in your system, then what you just digested will form either fat or glycogen, the storage form of glucose that’s used for quick energy. It doesn’t matter if it’s junk food or fruit.” ... your earlier link.
It is noteworthy that none of the links or evidence you provided come from the places you said I should look. While you're there, try to assess the difference in rat and human studies ... actual tests and metadata reviews ... and what is truly applicable to the human body. Look for words such as "might" and "may" in the abstract since those are not indicators of proof.
that is not my link. nothing is 'proved', evidence or findings can still only suggest an outcome so might or may are standard terminiology in journals, im not sure i get your point there.
Are you now denying posting that link to support your position?
please read back through the conversation and you will see i havnt posted a link.
You did post a link in the initial post ... just not that one. My bad. Those agreeing with you post things as flawed as your video link so I don't even bother trying to keep you differentiated.
i posted a video that i thought may be of interest to people on here because it regards health - people are allowed to have their own opinions and form their own evaluation of the evidence presented. it is your bad and comes across as slightly arrogant.
Your claim of not posting a link in this thread comes across as dishonest and wrong. Of course, I can't blame you for wanting to distance yourself from that flawed video.
i said i didnt post the link you claimed me to have posted. i didnt claim not to have posted the video, it is the reason i made a post. again, not sure what your point is.
" you will see i havnt posted a link." ... your exact words. Not claiming you didn't post that link .. that you didn't post a link .. which you did.
I love watching people contradict themselves over and over and your self contradicting posts are the only enjoyment in this thread.
please put that into context of the link that you were referring to in the first place, the mercola link, and what you obviously know i was referring to. childish.
I didn't link to anything from or about Mercola. In fact, I can honestly state that I have not posted a link in this thread.
i didnt say you did, but you referred to it.
How could I refer to a link that was provided after my post invoking his name?
ok then, really enjoyed this futile/pointless argument.
You still haven't explained the logical disconnect of thinking refined sugar is poison while still claiming to enjoy it.0 -
Good God! Will you stop the quarrelling! I said; you said; I didn't; yes you did. This is right; no it's wrong; it's my opinion; your opinion doesn't count; you used the wrong word. Are you kindergarten kids or grown-ups! This is supposed to be a discussion, not a fault finding mission.
Someone says something they find interesting or possible helpful to someone else. Someone doesn't like it and feels they need to rebutt it. OK ... say your side of it and leave it at that!
0 -
slowandsteady44 wrote: »i have not stated in my post to cut it out, i even said i still enjoy refined sugar in moderation - i used the phrase 'cut down'. my title is probably misleading as to what im trying to do here - post a link to a doc i found interesting and thought others might too.
My response was to the content of this whole thread, including multiple posts calling sugar evil, not just your original post.0
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
- 426 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