Sugar is killing you.

show previous quotes

I am in total agreement. As far as human food consumption goes, refined sugar is a newcomer ... with the exception of wild honey it has been produced for only about one thousand years, the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, and our bodies are not designed to handle it easily. Indeed, It has only been in the past few hundred years that refined sugar has been available to the average person and with increased consumption of refined sugar has come similar increases in obesity and the associated insulin intolerance and hypertension that accompany metabolic syndrome. There is no doubt that the alarming rise in diabetes and heart disease is closely linked with obesity and the consumption of refined sugar. Of course sugar is not the only villain ... our bodies were meant to be moving, not parked in front of a screen all day. I believe we need to have more consideration of who we are as humans and what our bodies need. That means eating whole, naturally occurring foods and getting some kind of daily exercise.
I recommend you read Richard J Johnson's "The Fat Switch" ... it's well researched by a very credible author and full of interesting information.

The alarming rise in diabetes and obesity is closely linked to overeating. Period.

show previous quotes

I am in total agreement. As far as human food consumption goes, refined sugar is a newcomer ... with the exception of wild honey it has been produced for only about one thousand years, the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, and our bodies are not designed to handle it easily. Indeed, It has only been in the past few hundred years that refined sugar has been available to the average person and with increased consumption of refined sugar has come similar increases in obesity and the associated insulin intolerance and hypertension that accompany metabolic syndrome. There is no doubt that the alarming rise in diabetes and heart disease is closely linked with obesity and the consumption of refined sugar. Of course sugar is not the only villain ... our bodies were meant to be moving, not parked in front of a screen all day. I believe we need to have more consideration of who we are as humans and what our bodies need. That means eating whole, naturally occurring foods and getting some kind of daily exercise.
I recommend you read Richard J Johnson's "The Fat Switch" ... it's well researched by a very credible author and full of interesting information.

The alarming rise in diabetes and obesity is closely linked to overeating. Period.

And would eating a diet filled with refined sugar perhaps be more likely to lead to overeating then a diet filled with whole foods? Of course it would for normal people who don't weigh and log every single piece of food they eat.

show previous quotes

I am in total agreement. As far as human food consumption goes, refined sugar is a newcomer ... with the exception of wild honey it has been produced for only about one thousand years, the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, and our bodies are not designed to handle it easily. Indeed, It has only been in the past few hundred years that refined sugar has been available to the average person and with increased consumption of refined sugar has come similar increases in obesity and the associated insulin intolerance and hypertension that accompany metabolic syndrome. There is no doubt that the alarming rise in diabetes and heart disease is closely linked with obesity and the consumption of refined sugar. Of course sugar is not the only villain ... our bodies were meant to be moving, not parked in front of a screen all day. I believe we need to have more consideration of who we are as humans and what our bodies need. That means eating whole, naturally occurring foods and getting some kind of daily exercise.
I recommend you read Richard J Johnson's "The Fat Switch" ... it's well researched by a very credible author and full of interesting information.

The alarming rise in diabetes and obesity is closely linked to overeating. Period.

And would eating a diet filled with refined sugar perhaps be more likely to lead to overeating then a diet filled with whole foods? Of course it would for normal people who don't weigh and log every single piece of food they eat.

I got fat (200+ pounds) on a diet of whole, healthy, minimally processed food. Wasn't even hard. I just...you know. Ate a lot.

show previous quotes

I am in total agreement. As far as human food consumption goes, refined sugar is a newcomer ... with the exception of wild honey it has been produced for only about one thousand years, the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, and our bodies are not designed to handle it easily. Indeed, It has only been in the past few hundred years that refined sugar has been available to the average person and with increased consumption of refined sugar has come similar increases in obesity and the associated insulin intolerance and hypertension that accompany metabolic syndrome. There is no doubt that the alarming rise in diabetes and heart disease is closely linked with obesity and the consumption of refined sugar. Of course sugar is not the only villain ... our bodies were meant to be moving, not parked in front of a screen all day. I believe we need to have more consideration of who we are as humans and what our bodies need. That means eating whole, naturally occurring foods and getting some kind of daily exercise.
I recommend you read Richard J Johnson's "The Fat Switch" ... it's well researched by a very credible author and full of interesting information.

The alarming rise in diabetes and obesity is closely linked to overeating. Period.

And would eating a diet filled with refined sugar perhaps be more likely to lead to overeating then a diet filled with whole foods? Of course it would for normal people who don't weigh and log every single piece of food they eat.

I got fat (200+ pounds) on a diet of whole, healthy, minimally processed food. Wasn't even hard. I just...you know. Ate a lot.

I never said it was impossible to gain weight eating whole foods! It's definitely doable. Although I still have to ask. Did this "diet of whole, healthy, minimally processed food" include lots of bread, pasta, or rice?

show previous quotes

HI OP - I just read your opening statement. If you are going to try to tell me that eating fruit (eating a fresh orange or apple) is going to make me fat, then I reject your opening statement.

I will eat an orange and an apple and a banana and watermelon and cherries and ugli fruit over cookies, cakes, ice cream, brownies, etc, not only because there are many nutrients in fruit (vitamins, fiber, juice, refreshment and sweetness), and also because they really taste good and satisfy my sweet tooth without having to eat processed sugary snacks for that reason.

Are cookies, cakes, brownies and ice cream considered processed if I make them myself?

Chewing is a process, by the time any of this food hits your belly, it's processed. I'm eating a damned cookie if I want one. Or a banana if I want one. They both have sugar. Perfectly fine either way.

PROCESSED - meaning desserts and sweets and things other than fruit usually made with white sugar - the stuff that I crave being a sugar addict that made me fat. (cookies, cake, brownies, pastries, etc.. For YOU ,, you might be able to eat that, but for me, I'm doing well without.)

you realize that some fruits have more sugar then a service of ice cream right?

and there is no difference, at the molecular level sugar is sugar….your body does not distinguish between where sugar comes from.

I see a lot of people on this site posting that, and it doesn't make any sense at all. Do you think that the second you eat something that it's instantly converted down to it's base molecules?

do you really think your body distinguishes between types of sugar? Do you really think it is possible to say that one is addicted to "added sugar" but that same "addict" can then eat 20 ounces of fruit a day?

Don't change the subject. Sure, a molecule of fructose may be a molecule of fructose. But that's neither here nor there when discussing a complex system. Foods have to be processed by your body BEFORE they turn into base molecules.

So while there is no difference b/w two solitary fructose molecules from different sources, there is a big difference in the metabolic response b/w eating an apple and eating an equivalent caloric amount of HFCS.

In regard to "sugar addiction," it makes perfect sense that foods that taste better would more addictive.

interesting concept ..so by your logic, I can be addicted to crack-cocaine, but not powder cocaine....

You can become addicted to either one. But which one is known to be more addictive?

I don't know any crack heads that are not addicted to cocaine...

show previous quotes

HI OP - I just read your opening statement. If you are going to try to tell me that eating fruit (eating a fresh orange or apple) is going to make me fat, then I reject your opening statement.

I will eat an orange and an apple and a banana and watermelon and cherries and ugli fruit over cookies, cakes, ice cream, brownies, etc, not only because there are many nutrients in fruit (vitamins, fiber, juice, refreshment and sweetness), and also because they really taste good and satisfy my sweet tooth without having to eat processed sugary snacks for that reason.

Are cookies, cakes, brownies and ice cream considered processed if I make them myself?

Chewing is a process, by the time any of this food hits your belly, it's processed. I'm eating a damned cookie if I want one. Or a banana if I want one. They both have sugar. Perfectly fine either way.

PROCESSED - meaning desserts and sweets and things other than fruit usually made with white sugar - the stuff that I crave being a sugar addict that made me fat. (cookies, cake, brownies, pastries, etc.. For YOU ,, you might be able to eat that, but for me, I'm doing well without.)

you realize that some fruits have more sugar then a service of ice cream right?

and there is no difference, at the molecular level sugar is sugar….your body does not distinguish between where sugar comes from.

I see a lot of people on this site posting that, and it doesn't make any sense at all. Do you think that the second you eat something that it's instantly converted down to it's base molecules?

do you really think your body distinguishes between types of sugar? Do you really think it is possible to say that one is addicted to "added sugar" but that same "addict" can then eat 20 ounces of fruit a day?

Don't change the subject. Sure, a molecule of fructose may be a molecule of fructose. But that's neither here nor there when discussing a complex system. Foods have to be processed by your body BEFORE they turn into base molecules.

So while there is no difference b/w two solitary fructose molecules from different sources, there is a big difference in the metabolic response b/w eating an apple and eating an equivalent caloric amount of HFCS.

In regard to "sugar addiction," it makes perfect sense that foods that taste better would more addictive.

interesting concept ..so by your logic, I can be addicted to crack-cocaine, but not powder cocaine....

You can become addicted to either one. But which one is known to be more addictive?

I don't know any crack heads that are not addicted to cocaine...

I really don't know where this analogy came from. But sugar addiction is more likely 2/2 to the taste and our brain's reward center, not individual molecules. Since fruit and cupcakes taste a lot different I'm not sure why you would think addiction would to either would cross over.

show previous quotes

HI OP - I just read your opening statement. If you are going to try to tell me that eating fruit (eating a fresh orange or apple) is going to make me fat, then I reject your opening statement.

I will eat an orange and an apple and a banana and watermelon and cherries and ugli fruit over cookies, cakes, ice cream, brownies, etc, not only because there are many nutrients in fruit (vitamins, fiber, juice, refreshment and sweetness), and also because they really taste good and satisfy my sweet tooth without having to eat processed sugary snacks for that reason.

Are cookies, cakes, brownies and ice cream considered processed if I make them myself?

Chewing is a process, by the time any of this food hits your belly, it's processed. I'm eating a damned cookie if I want one. Or a banana if I want one. They both have sugar. Perfectly fine either way.

PROCESSED - meaning desserts and sweets and things other than fruit usually made with white sugar - the stuff that I crave being a sugar addict that made me fat. (cookies, cake, brownies, pastries, etc.. For YOU ,, you might be able to eat that, but for me, I'm doing well without.)

you realize that some fruits have more sugar then a service of ice cream right?

and there is no difference, at the molecular level sugar is sugar….your body does not distinguish between where sugar comes from.

I see a lot of people on this site posting that, and it doesn't make any sense at all. Do you think that the second you eat something that it's instantly converted down to it's base molecules?

do you really think your body distinguishes between types of sugar? Do you really think it is possible to say that one is addicted to "added sugar" but that same "addict" can then eat 20 ounces of fruit a day?

Don't change the subject. Sure, a molecule of fructose may be a molecule of fructose. But that's neither here nor there when discussing a complex system. Foods have to be processed by your body BEFORE they turn into base molecules.

So while there is no difference b/w two solitary fructose molecules from different sources, there is a big difference in the metabolic response b/w eating an apple and eating an equivalent caloric amount of HFCS.

In regard to "sugar addiction," it makes perfect sense that foods that taste better would more addictive.

interesting concept ..so by your logic, I can be addicted to crack-cocaine, but not powder cocaine....

You can become addicted to either one. But which one is known to be more addictive?

I don't know any crack heads that are not addicted to cocaine...

I really don't know where this analogy came from. But sugar addiction is more likely 2/2 to the taste and our brain's reward center, not individual molecules. Since fruit and cupcakes taste a lot different I'm not sure why you would think addiction would to either would cross over.

Are we all still in agreement that sugar " addiction" is a real thing? And that it is exclusive to "processed" sugars? Because bacon

show previous quotes

HI OP - I just read your opening statement. If you are going to try to tell me that eating fruit (eating a fresh orange or apple) is going to make me fat, then I reject your opening statement.

I will eat an orange and an apple and a banana and watermelon and cherries and ugli fruit over cookies, cakes, ice cream, brownies, etc, not only because there are many nutrients in fruit (vitamins, fiber, juice, refreshment and sweetness), and also because they really taste good and satisfy my sweet tooth without having to eat processed sugary snacks for that reason.

Are cookies, cakes, brownies and ice cream considered processed if I make them myself?

Chewing is a process, by the time any of this food hits your belly, it's processed. I'm eating a damned cookie if I want one. Or a banana if I want one. They both have sugar. Perfectly fine either way.

PROCESSED - meaning desserts and sweets and things other than fruit usually made with white sugar - the stuff that I crave being a sugar addict that made me fat. (cookies, cake, brownies, pastries, etc.. For YOU ,, you might be able to eat that, but for me, I'm doing well without.)

you realize that some fruits have more sugar then a service of ice cream right?

and there is no difference, at the molecular level sugar is sugar….your body does not distinguish between where sugar comes from.

I see a lot of people on this site posting that, and it doesn't make any sense at all. Do you think that the second you eat something that it's instantly converted down to it's base molecules?

do you really think your body distinguishes between types of sugar? Do you really think it is possible to say that one is addicted to "added sugar" but that same "addict" can then eat 20 ounces of fruit a day?

Don't change the subject. Sure, a molecule of fructose may be a molecule of fructose. But that's neither here nor there when discussing a complex system. Foods have to be processed by your body BEFORE they turn into base molecules.

So while there is no difference b/w two solitary fructose molecules from different sources, there is a big difference in the metabolic response b/w eating an apple and eating an equivalent caloric amount of HFCS.

In regard to "sugar addiction," it makes perfect sense that foods that taste better would more addictive.

interesting concept ..so by your logic, I can be addicted to crack-cocaine, but not powder cocaine....

You can become addicted to either one. But which one is known to be more addictive?

I don't know any crack heads that are not addicted to cocaine...

I really don't know where this analogy came from. But sugar addiction is more likely 2/2 to the taste and our brain's reward center, not individual molecules. Since fruit and cupcakes taste a lot different I'm not sure why you would think addiction would to either would cross over.

There's this salty taste I'm addicted to... but I've heard it's actually made up of mostly sugar.