Processed Sugar

likitisplit

If there was a situation where you would want to spike insulin, that would be a benefit, I guess. Whether or not you consider that a nutritional benefit is another story.

It's also a benefit to me if I want to meet my macros quickly and conveniently instead of gorging myself on foods that are low in processed sugar.

It's all about context and goals.

Insulin spikes trigger muscle growth.

Those are the lines along which I was thinking, knowing that insulin is anabolic. Beneficial? Completely subjective.

Sorry. I read it as "insulin spikes are BAD" Too much MFP for me

Meerataila

I just realized something. WTF is wrong with me? I can barely afford produce. Really 'barely' is synonymous with can't really but try anyway. If every one of you happily munching on cookies, cake, and bread with corn syrup hidden in it start switching to produce prices will get even higher and I'll be totally screwed.

Sugar is good for you! White sugar is the best! Snort it! Cook it! Mainline it! Chow down! But stay away from my strawberries!

Um, one can eat ice cream and also eat produce, you know.

My ice cream is usually more expensive than the produce too, but maybe that's because this is farm country or something. If I can ever find my ice cream maker, I might even make my own ice cream with produce. (I'll probably add a little sugar, though, because I'm wild that way.)

Sadly, in the winter the locally-grown produce isn't so available (because snow and all that) but produce still seems to be available at quite reasonable prices.

Besides, given that this is a weird cold summer, I'm still picking strawberries from my garden. Just getting far fewer tomatoes than usual.

Eat it at your own risk. Fruit is poisonous. Just google poisonous fruit, you'll get all kind of pictures that look exactly like those berries you should pass by in the store. The ones I'm standing over protectively, snarling. It's to keep anyone from getting sick, I tell ya! Stay away!

likitisplit

I just realized something. WTF is wrong with me? I can barely afford produce. Really 'barely' is synonymous with can't really but try anyway. If every one of you happily munching on cookies, cake, and bread with corn syrup hidden in it start switching to produce prices will get even higher and I'll be totally screwed.

Sugar is good for you! White sugar is the best! Snort it! Cook it! Mainline it! Chow down! But stay away from my strawberries!

Um, one can eat ice cream and also eat produce, you know.

My ice cream is usually more expensive than the produce too, but maybe that's because this is farm country or something. If I can ever find my ice cream maker, I might even make my own ice cream with produce. (I'll probably add a little sugar, though, because I'm wild that way.)

Sadly, in the winter the locally-grown produce isn't so available (because snow and all that) but produce still seems to be available at quite reasonable prices.

Besides, given that this is a weird cold summer, I'm still picking strawberries from my garden. Just getting far fewer tomatoes than usual.

Eat it at your own risk. Fruit is poisonous. Just google poisonous fruit, you'll get all kind of pictures that look exactly like those berries you should pass by in the store. The ones I'm standing over protectively, snarling. It's to keep anyone from getting sick, I tell ya! Stay away!

I just did a Google search. You wouldn't believe what I found!

Meerataila

I just realized something. WTF is wrong with me? I can barely afford produce. Really 'barely' is synonymous with can't really but try anyway. If every one of you happily munching on cookies, cake, and bread with corn syrup hidden in it start switching to produce prices will get even higher and I'll be totally screwed.

Sugar is good for you! White sugar is the best! Snort it! Cook it! Mainline it! Chow down! But stay away from my strawberries!

Um, one can eat ice cream and also eat produce, you know.

My ice cream is usually more expensive than the produce too, but maybe that's because this is farm country or something. If I can ever find my ice cream maker, I might even make my own ice cream with produce. (I'll probably add a little sugar, though, because I'm wild that way.)

Sadly, in the winter the locally-grown produce isn't so available (because snow and all that) but produce still seems to be available at quite reasonable prices.

Besides, given that this is a weird cold summer, I'm still picking strawberries from my garden. Just getting far fewer tomatoes than usual.

Eat it at your own risk. Fruit is poisonous. Just google poisonous fruit, you'll get all kind of pictures that look exactly like those berries you should pass by in the store. The ones I'm standing over protectively, snarling. It's to keep anyone from getting sick, I tell ya! Stay away!

I just did a Google search. You wouldn't believe what I found!

Yup. Fruit leads to a prolonged, horrendous death full of foaming at the mouth, convulsions, and agonized regret. I'm just going to take these to the cashier now and buy them, then dispose of them in a safe, concrete-lined pit where they can't do any more damage.

The perfectly safe, tasty cookies are on Aisle 3.

Swiftlet66

The question is, if a starving man only had water to survive on while his twin brother had water and sugar, which one will die first? Some scientists supposedly did a study on mice regarding a similar issue, feeding one over the other sugar water. Guess what they found!?!?


http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/daily-soda-habit-impairs-evolutionary-fitness-mice-study-finds

Hornsby

The question is, if a starving man only had water to survive on while his twin brother had water and sugar, which one will die first? Some scientists supposedly did a study on mice regarding a similar issue, feeding one over the other sugar water. Guess what they found!?!?


http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/daily-soda-habit-impairs-evolutionary-fitness-mice-study-finds

Can you post actual study?

Swiftlet66

No. I never said anything about this study being real or not; it's just interesting to think about this stuff.

The_Enginerd

The question is, if a starving man only had water to survive on while his twin brother had water and sugar, which one will die first? Some scientists supposedly did a study on mice regarding a similar issue, feeding one over the other sugar water. Guess what they found!?!?


http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/daily-soda-habit-impairs-evolutionary-fitness-mice-study-finds

That is a bold statement and conclusion. The given scenario and what the study tested weren't the same. At all.

Meerataila

The question is, if a starving man only had water to survive on while his twin brother had water and sugar, which one will die first? Some scientists supposedly did a study on mice regarding a similar issue, feeding one over the other sugar water. Guess what they found!?!?


http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/daily-soda-habit-impairs-evolutionary-fitness-mice-study-finds

That is a bold statement and conclusion. The given scenario and what the study tested weren't the same. At all.

True, it wasn't. Although it was interesting. If it's the one I read when I googled the keywords, researchers took wild mice and raised them to the mousy equivalent of teenage years. Half were on sugar water as well as balanced food, the other half were fed cornstarch water and a balanced mouse diet.

Then they turned both groups loose to compete in a controlled wildish environment with wild raised mice. The sugar water mice did much worse. The females died younger. The males didn't die younger but fathered less children.

However, I don't remember it saying they controlled for weight. If they didn't, then MFP sugar eaters will rightly argue that it can't apply to them because the human sugar eaters are controlling for weight through calorie counting and treats in moderation.

The_Enginerd

The question is, if a starving man only had water to survive on while his twin brother had water and sugar, which one will die first? Some scientists supposedly did a study on mice regarding a similar issue, feeding one over the other sugar water. Guess what they found!?!?


http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/daily-soda-habit-impairs-evolutionary-fitness-mice-study-finds

That is a bold statement and conclusion. The given scenario and what the study tested weren't the same. At all.

True, it wasn't. Although it was interesting. If it's the one I read when I googled the keywords, researchers took wild mice and raised them to the mousy equivalent of teenage years. Half were on sugar water as well as balanced food, the other half were fed cornstarch water and a balanced mouse diet.

Then they turned both groups loose to compete in a controlled wildish environment with wild raised mice. The sugar water mice did much worse. The females died younger. The males didn't die younger but fathered less children.

However, I don't remember it saying they controlled for weight. If they didn't, then MFP sugar eaters will rightly argue that it can't apply to them because the human sugar eaters are controlling for weight through calorie counting and treats in moderation.

That is indeed what it was.

It would be good to see the entire study to see if sugar was on top of what they ate, and what amount of sugar they ate as a portion of their diet. Even at the same calorie level, sugar making up too much of the diet would effect the ability to obtain required nutrients.

And of course, even if it does hold true for mice, we should be very careful extrapolating this to humans.

RET68

Because maple syrup, mollasses, etc have energy and nutrients, and are not the endproducts of large scale environmental destruction. Drive out of Miami sometime when they are burning cane. Stevia adds pleasure with no calories. Bees do not generally bleach their "products", I think you might be tilting towards sophistry. Putting honey in a bottle in no way compares with monoculture, and factory processing. :flowerforyou:

RET68

If the only benefit is energy or taste, then certainly maple syrup, honey, stevia or agave would be better.

Why?

lemurcat12

Because maple syrup, mollasses, etc have energy and nutrients, and are not the endproducts of large scale environmental destruction. Drive out of Miami sometime when they are burning cane. Stevia adds pleasure with no calories. Bees do not generally bleach their "products", I think you might be tilting towards sophistry. Putting honey in a bottle in no way compares with monoculture, and factory processing. :flowerforyou:

Sugar has energy. That's been covered. The environmental impacts are a separate topic and more complicated than you acknowledge here. Otherwise, look at the specifics of the cookie example--the idea that sugar makes it bad for you and maple syrup not is based on nothing beyond a rather superstitious idea about one being processed and the other not. Nutritionally and calorie wise there's no real difference. Eat beyond moderation and both are bad ideas.

The inclusion of agave nectar in the usual list of supposedly more "natural" so better alternatives is one obvious problem with this way of compartmentalizing things.

yarwell

Because maple syrup, mollasses, etc have energy and nutrients, and are not the endproducts of large scale environmental destruction. Drive out of Miami sometime when they are burning cane.

Sorry to rain on your parade but molasses comes out of the same process as sugar - two products of the same establishment.

Don't judge the entire sugar industry by the 3rd world practices of the Southern USA either ;-)

kevinsmithrn

Well said sir.

_Terrapin_

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.

Any time you write lolwut it is code for. . .do not pay attention to this poster. And thanks for the link we all need a laugh now and again.

earlnabby

Because maple syrup, mollasses, etc have energy and nutrients, and are not the endproducts of large scale environmental destruction. Drive out of Miami sometime when they are burning cane.

Sorry to rain on your parade but molasses comes out of the same process as sugar - two products of the same establishment.

Don't judge the entire sugar industry by the 3rd world practices of the Southern USA either ;-)

And then there is the fact that the majority of sugar comes from sugar beets, not cane.

biggsterjackster

Of course no benefits. People just love sweet stuff.