Processed Sugar

The_WoIverine

I am very curious to see what people have to say about the nutritional benefits we get from eating/drinking foods high in processed sugar.

Besides the endless posts from people debating whether sugar is bad or not, I have not seen one person explaining what are the benefits of including foods loaded with processed sugar in our meals. Anyone?

SideSteel

I am very curious to see what people have to say about the nutritional benefits we get from eating/drinking foods high in processed sugar.

Besides the endless posts from people debating whether sugar is bad or not, I have not seen one person explaining what are the benefits of including foods loaded with processed sugar in our meals. Anyone?

Flavor/Palatability.

Additionally, whether or not it has a benefit is not a counter argument to whether or not the inclusion of some amount of processed sugar is harmful or deleterious in a given context.

Jacwhite22

I am very curious to see what people have to say about the nutritional benefits we get from eating/drinking foods high in processed sugar.

Besides the endless posts from people debating whether sugar is bad or not, I have not seen one person explaining what are the benefits of including foods loaded with processed sugar in our meals. Anyone?

They taste good. Nobody eats sugar for the nutritional benefits. Are you even serious right now?

Palamedes

Shipwrecked sailors who ate and drank nothing but sugar and rum for nine days surely went through some of this trauma; the tales they had to tell created a big public relations problem for the sugar pushers. This incident occurred when a vessel carrying a cargo of sugar was shipwrecked in 1793. The five surviving sailors were finally rescued after being marooned for nine days. They were in a wasted condition due to starvation, having consumed nothing but sugar and rum. The eminent French physiologist F. Magendie was inspired by that incident to conduct a series of experiments with animals, the results of which he published in 1816. In the experiments, he fed dogs a diet of sugar or olive oil and water. All the dogs wasted and died.

The shipwrecked sailors and the French physiologist's experimental dogs proved the same point. As a steady diet, sugar is worse than nothing. Plain water can keep you alive for quite some time. Sugar and water can kill you. Humans [and animals] are "unable to subsist on a diet of sugar".

So, the major benefit to sugar is that you will die quicker. Enjoy!

The_WoIverine

Flavor/Palatability.

Additionally, whether or not it has a benefit is not a counter argument to whether or not the inclusion of some amount of processed sugar is harmful or deleterious in a given context.

Still doesn't answer my question.

They taste good. Nobody eats sugar for the nutritional benefits. Are you even serious right now?

Why would you think I'm not being serious? I believe when people are trying to achieve a fitness goal (weight loss, muscle gain, etc) they eat food based on a benefit they will get from what they're eating. If sugar doesn't provide any, then why people get bothered when others don't want to include sugar in their diets?

SideSteel

Flavor/Palatability.

Additionally, whether or not it has a benefit is not a counter argument to whether or not the inclusion of some amount of processed sugar is harmful or deleterious in a given context.

Still doesn't answer my question.

They taste good. Nobody eats sugar for the nutritional benefits. Are you even serious right now?

Why would you think I'm not being serious? I believe when people are trying to achieve a fitness goal (weight loss, muscle gain, etc) they eat food based on a benefit they will get from what they're eating. If sugar doesn't provide any, then why people get bothered when others don't want to include sugar in their diets?

Flavor can be a benefit.

doorki

Shipwrecked sailors who ate and drank nothing but sugar and rum for nine days surely went through some of this trauma; the tales they had to tell created a big public relations problem for the sugar pushers. This incident occurred when a vessel carrying a cargo of sugar was shipwrecked in 1793. The five surviving sailors were finally rescued after being marooned for nine days. They were in a wasted condition due to starvation, having consumed nothing but sugar and rum. The eminent French physiologist F. Magendie was inspired by that incident to conduct a series of experiments with animals, the results of which he published in 1816. In the experiments, he fed dogs a diet of sugar or olive oil and water. All the dogs wasted and died.

The shipwrecked sailors and the French physiologist's experimental dogs proved the same point. As a steady diet, sugar is worse than nothing. Plain water can keep you alive for quite some time. Sugar and water can kill you. Humans [and animals] are "unable to subsist on a diet of sugar".

So, the major benefit to sugar is that you will die quicker. Enjoy!

So....it is only all or none? No middle ground? Not even a little bit? Like that bridge at the end of Fellowship of the Ring? just a tiny sliver of middle ground?

SideSteel

Flavor/Palatability.

Additionally, whether or not it has a benefit is not a counter argument to whether or not the inclusion of some amount of processed sugar is harmful or deleterious in a given context.

Still doesn't answer my question.

They taste good. Nobody eats sugar for the nutritional benefits. Are you even serious right now?

Why would you think I'm not being serious? I believe when people are trying to achieve a fitness goal (weight loss, muscle gain, etc) they eat food based on a benefit they will get from what they're eating. If sugar doesn't provide any, then why people get bothered when others don't want to include sugar in their diets?

If you are implying that a nutritional benefit is exclusively the reason to select food I would disagree entirely.

But either way, sugar provides energy. Energy can be a benefit.

Sarauk2sf

Shipwrecked sailors who ate and drank nothing but sugar and rum for nine days surely went through some of this trauma; the tales they had to tell created a big public relations problem for the sugar pushers. This incident occurred when a vessel carrying a cargo of sugar was shipwrecked in 1793. The five surviving sailors were finally rescued after being marooned for nine days. They were in a wasted condition due to starvation, having consumed nothing but sugar and rum. The eminent French physiologist F. Magendie was inspired by that incident to conduct a series of experiments with animals, the results of which he published in 1816. In the experiments, he fed dogs a diet of sugar or olive oil and water. All the dogs wasted and died.

The shipwrecked sailors and the French physiologist's experimental dogs proved the same point. As a steady diet, sugar is worse than nothing. Plain water can keep you alive for quite some time. Sugar and water can kill you. Humans [and animals] are "unable to subsist on a diet of sugar".

So, the major benefit to sugar is that you will die quicker. Enjoy!

lolwut?

ETA: I like to link where I extracted quotes from....

http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/sugar-problem/refined-sugar-the-sweetest-poison-of-all

and lol at that article.

Sarauk2sf

Energy.

The_WoIverine

Flavor can be a benefit.

Not a nutritional one

If you are implying that a nutritional benefit is exclusively the reason to select food I would disagree entirely.

But either way, sugar provides energy. Energy is a benefit.

What if I'm already getting energy from veggies and fruits, which also contain mineral, vitamins, antioxidants, etc. A quick rush of energy won't give me any benefit if I don't need it while I'm sitting in front of a computer working for 8 hours. Won't that turn into adipose tissue because I'm not really using that glucose in my bloodstream?

_Zardoz_

I am very curious to see what people have to say about the nutritional benefits we get from eating/drinking foods high in processed sugar.

Besides the endless posts from people debating whether sugar is bad or not, I have not seen one person explaining what are the benefits of including foods loaded with processed sugar in our meals. Anyone?

sugar has calories. Calories provide the body with energy so we need calories. End of thread

lemurcat12

I am very curious to see what people have to say about the nutritional benefits we get from eating/drinking foods high in processed sugar.

Besides the endless posts from people debating whether sugar is bad or not, I have not seen one person explaining what are the benefits of including foods loaded with processed sugar in our meals. Anyone?

Dunno what "loaded" is, but I made a rhubarb-based sauce and it tasted much better when I added a bit of sugar. Not sure why that's worse than, say, just eating fruit with more sugar content naturally. The benefit is that it tasted good and also that it made a food that's good for me more appealing (rhubarb).

Also, the "processed" buzzword raises flags. Do you maintain that my rhubarb sauce would have been more acceptable had I just used honey?

Jacwhite22

Flavor/Palatability.

Additionally, whether or not it has a benefit is not a counter argument to whether or not the inclusion of some amount of processed sugar is harmful or deleterious in a given context.

Still doesn't answer my question.

They taste good. Nobody eats sugar for the nutritional benefits. Are you even serious right now?

Why would you think I'm not being serious? I believe when people are trying to achieve a fitness goal (weight loss, muscle gain, etc) they eat food based on a benefit they will get from what they're eating. If sugar doesn't provide any, then why people get bothered when others don't want to include sugar in their diets?

Because people complain about not being able to eat anything that they love or that tastes good. I would argue that the point is to try to achieve the fitness goals while continuing to eat foods you like/love. It has to be sustainable. In MOST cases, restricting sugar is not .

KarenJanine

Flavor can be a benefit.

Not a nutritional one

If you are implying that a nutritional benefit is exclusively the reason to select food I would disagree entirely.

But either way, sugar provides energy. Energy is a benefit.

What if I'm already getting energy from veggies and fruits, which also contain mineral, vitamins, antioxidants, etc. A quick rush of energy won't give me any benefit if I don't need it while I'm sitting in front of a computer working for 8 hours. Won't that turn into adipose tissue because I'm not really using that glucose in my bloodstream?

Not if you're not in a calorie surplus.

Hell_Flower

Shipwrecked sailors who ate and drank nothing but sugar and rum for nine days surely went through some of this trauma; the tales they had to tell created a big public relations problem for the sugar pushers. This incident occurred when a vessel carrying a cargo of sugar was shipwrecked in 1793. The five surviving sailors were finally rescued after being marooned for nine days. They were in a wasted condition due to starvation, having consumed nothing but sugar and rum. The eminent French physiologist F. Magendie was inspired by that incident to conduct a series of experiments with animals, the results of which he published in 1816. In the experiments, he fed dogs a diet of sugar or olive oil and water. All the dogs wasted and died.

The shipwrecked sailors and the French physiologist's experimental dogs proved the same point. As a steady diet, sugar is worse than nothing. Plain water can keep you alive for quite some time. Sugar and water can kill you. Humans [and animals] are "unable to subsist on a diet of sugar".

So, the major benefit to sugar is that you will die quicker. Enjoy!

So....it is only all or none? No middle ground? Not even a little bit? Like that bridge at the end of Fellowship of the Ring? just a tiny sliver of middle ground?

So...the rum had no impact on them whatsoever? Cool, I'm off to get a couple litres of Sailor Jerry, seeing as how it's basically Slim Fast.... :noway:

Honestly - added sugar is, IMHO, all about palate and flavour. I'd also be tempted to add - fairly sure that the CEO of ADM and the CEO of Glucophage play golf together. But y'know...conspiracy theories

In terms of actual health benefits...I'm in for this one, it's a valid question I haven't seen before.

Palamedes

Processed sugar is a poison. Given the choice in a survival situation, no sugar is a better survival option than eating sugar.

Digesting processed sugar leaches other vitamins and minerals from our systems. The real problem is that sugar tastes good. Therefore, when making processed food, the food industry tends to dump a lot of sugar into the mixing bowl. Try this little experiment. Get two foods: a regular one and a low fat one. Check the carbs in both. If the food industry can't use fat, they know to pour in the sugar to make the food taste good. At some point, you get too much and that is bad for you.

As long as you are eating a balanced diet and getting some exercise, your body can handle a moderate amount of sugar.

lemurcat12

I believe when people are trying to achieve a fitness goal (weight loss, muscle gain, etc) they eat food based on a benefit they will get from what they're eating. If sugar doesn't provide any, then why people get bothered when others don't want to include sugar in their diets?

I do not care what other people eat. I care when false claims are made or when people are told they should not eat things that are, in fact, perfectly fine in moderation (around here that sometimes even includes fruit).

But I also think that for most people the benefit of food includes taste. That's why many consider cooking an art, or at least a skill worth having. Lots of people wouldn't be into the idea that life would be better if we could just take pills that would optimize our nutritional benefits and provide us with the correct number of calories.

SideSteel

Flavor can be a benefit.

Not a nutritional one

If you are implying that a nutritional benefit is exclusively the reason to select food I would disagree entirely.

But either way, sugar provides energy. Energy is a benefit.

What if I'm already getting energy from veggies and fruits, which also contain mineral, vitamins, antioxidants, etc. A quick rush of energy won't give me any benefit if I don't need it while I'm sitting in front of a computer working for 8 hours. Won't that turn into adipose tissue because I'm not really using that glucose in my bloodstream?

This is an entirely different question, because you're adding a lot of context.
Generally speaking:
If the diet as a whole is not hypocaloric than fat storage will not exceed fat oxidation. The end result will be that you will not accrue fat stores. If the diet as a whole is hypocaloric than fat storage exceeds fat oxidation and you gain fat. This is a function of excess calories.

Edit: hyper caloric. I'm posting this with recording software so there may be some grammatical errors.

Sarauk2sf

Processed sugar is a poison. Given the choice in a survival situation, no sugar is a better survival option than eating sugar.

Umm....coz we are all in a survival situation...

The_WoIverine

What if I'm already getting energy from veggies and fruits, which also contain mineral, vitamins, antioxidants, etc. A quick rush of energy won't give me any benefit if I don't need it while I'm sitting in front of a computer working for 8 hours. Won't that turn into adipose tissue because I'm not really using that glucose in my bloodstream?

Not if you're not in a calorie surplus.

Really?