*RANT* Sugar, sugar, sugar!

Options
1911131415

Replies

  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    JoRocka wrote: »
    dbmata wrote: »
    orange juice?

    Might as well just eat a pixy stick, it's just colored sugar.

    But colored by nature.

    which makes it inheriently better?

    I color my hair because my natural color sucks. but the color I chose is natural- so i mean that makes it okay?

    it's just such an insipid line of thought. natural does not automatically mean better.

    You are assuming a line of thought

    You could color your hair naturally by steeping walnut husks, though. Or beets, if you wanted to go red.
  • HeySwoleSister
    HeySwoleSister Posts: 1,938 Member
    Options
    JoRocka wrote: »
    dbmata wrote: »
    orange juice?

    Might as well just eat a pixy stick, it's just colored sugar.

    But colored by nature.

    which makes it inheriently better?

    I color my hair because my natural color sucks. but the color I chose is natural- so i mean that makes it okay?

    it's just such an insipid line of thought. natural does not automatically mean better.

    I'm secretly wanting to give myself a hair dye job based on nature. Problem is, my middle daughter says she'd be embarrassed. I WANT MY MANTIS SHRIMP INSPIRED HAIRDO, DARN IT.

    mantis_shrimp.jpg
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    Options
    did you know they'll break your finger? Angry little buggers.
  • DeWoSa
    DeWoSa Posts: 496 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    EWJLang wrote: »
    People keep mentioning the medical exceptions because without fail, this is how these threads go.

    A: Sugar-- DISCUSS
    B: IT'S TEH DEBBIL!
    C: It's OK as long as it's NATURAL, by which I mean is either in certain fruits or is obscure and costs a fortune at Whole Foods.
    D: Sugar is not evil. Eat it if it fits your targets.
    B: But, IT'S UNCLEAN
    E: No, seriously guys, D is right. Sugar won't hurt you.
    F: BUT, BEETUS!

    Except this thread didn't do that. At all.

    OP wanted to know how to cut out refined sugar. A bunch of people answered with specific techniques for cutting out refined sugar.

    Then several people came in and instead of helping OP, started their pick-a-fight routine.

    Sugar is the devil for people who don't have any control around refined sugar foods. If you are someone who can't understand that, move on.

    Or, if you want to come in and pick a fight, don't act like OP and the people helping OP started it.

    Own your own baggage.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Options
    This is still going on? Oy...
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    Options
    Sugar isn't the devil. Dear jeebus. lol.
  • HeySwoleSister
    HeySwoleSister Posts: 1,938 Member
    Options
    dbmata wrote: »
    did you know they'll break your finger? Angry little buggers.
    Yup. The Mantis shrimp is a badass mofo. Tis part of why he's such a worthy hairdo inspiration.

    I'm the President of my museum board. Our membership is rather...staid. It's fun imagining what they'd say if I walked in with Mantis Shrimp hair.
  • JeffseekingV
    JeffseekingV Posts: 3,165 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    EWJLang wrote: »
    People keep mentioning the medical exceptions because without fail, this is how these threads go.

    A: Sugar-- DISCUSS
    B: IT'S TEH DEBBIL!
    C: It's OK as long as it's NATURAL, by which I mean is either in certain fruits or is obscure and costs a fortune at Whole Foods.
    D: Sugar is not evil. Eat it if it fits your targets.
    B: But, IT'S UNCLEAN
    E: No, seriously guys, D is right. Sugar won't hurt you.
    F: BUT, BEETUS!

    Except this thread didn't do that. At all.

    OP wanted to know how to cut out refined sugar. A bunch of people answered with specific techniques for cutting out refined sugar.

    Then several people came in and instead of helping OP, started their pick-a-fight routine.

    Sugar is the devil for people who don't have any control around refined sugar foods. If you can't understand that, move on.

    Or, if you want to come in and pick a fight, don't act like OP and the people helping OP started it.

    Own your own baggage.

    Actually people chimed in her to ask her WHY is she cutting and to tell her in reality, it's not necessary unless you have some specific medical reasons for doing so.

    Sugar is no more the devil then any other specific nutrient ingredient.

    To be honest, I'd probably report this post if I had the ability. Your attack on others while not that bad in MY opinion, I've received a warning for less.
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    Options
    I've always wanted to do a raven blue. I haven't found anyone who can do that irridescent blue on top of the black though. Imagine having hair like that.
  • JoRocka
    JoRocka Posts: 17,525 Member
    Options
    JoRocka wrote: »
    dbmata wrote: »
    orange juice?

    Might as well just eat a pixy stick, it's just colored sugar.

    But colored by nature.

    which makes it inheriently better?

    I color my hair because my natural color sucks. but the color I chose is natural- so i mean that makes it okay?

    it's just such an insipid line of thought. natural does not automatically mean better.

    You are assuming a line of thought

    You could color your hair naturally by steeping walnut husks, though. Or beets, if you wanted to go red.

    or henna- with indigo- which I have done. and may currently be doing- you automatically assumed it wasn't and it was done by box. Which again- is neither here nor there- changing my hair is "unnatural" by the sheer definition of it.
    I WANT MY MANTIS SHRIMP INSPIRED HAIRDO, DARN IT.

    that.
    is.
    awesome.

    DB- my dream hair as a highschooler- and probably even to this day is reflective blue black hair with neon royal blue tips. Because it's awesome.
  • mrmagee3
    mrmagee3 Posts: 518 Member
    Options
    JoRocka wrote: »
    It's generally considered poor form (and rather insulting) to assume that you're starting a discussion from a position of intellectual superiority to the person you're speaking with.

    It's not an insult. It's a reality- if you cannot understand this concept- there is no point further discussing it because I am- wholly incapable of reducing this concept to a level at which you might grasp it.

    If anything- it's an insult to me since I lack the requisite tools to explain this concept-

    That being said I find it to be conceivable and more than reasonable that I/we cannot reduce a concept more simply than we have here and have someone understand it- at which point- you just don't get and you wont' until your mind set changes.

    I am perfectly capable of understanding what you're trying to say. It's simply that I disagree with you. To the extent that we can keep the disagreements civil, and not feel like we're talking past one another, I am open to the possibility that the act of having this conversation could cause me to either reconsider part of my position, help me more fully flesh out my beliefs on the topic, or open me to all new avenues of thought completely (like the crack analogy below).

    In short, I've rarely found that I've learned much when surrounded by people who always agree with me. In as much as someone is willing to have an honest discussion here, I'm willing to engage them on things that I find to be interesting. It has been my experience that many here are not always willing to do so -- my apologies if I painted with too broad of a brush with regard to this conversation.
    JoRocka wrote: »
    Though part of me actually wonders if crack actually would be bad if someone could successfully moderate and experience no ill effect of their usage, this is probably neither here nor there, as smoking is "bad" in general.
    I actually wondered similarly the same thing as I typed it- knowing it was an open hole that could be exploited- but I felt the analogy was strong enough to continue to use it.

    As far as beer- no- let's say I can't moderate... but that does not mean beer is not bad for me.

    I'm guessing you meant to say "that does not mean beer is bad for me..", not the other way way around, because otherwise we're agreeing. :D
    JoRocka wrote: »
    I just cannot moderate. That means I have a problem with my self discipline- and the answer is "don't go to a bar" or "grown up and learn how to say no".

    The beer still processes the same as it would for someone who can moderate. It is not 'bad for me'

    the only difference lies in when my self control breaks down and I consume way to much.

    Mmm. Addiction is a tough thing, and it might be where the analogy breaks down a bit. If "self discipline" was an effective strategy for people who have addiction issues, there wouldn't be a need for rehab or counseling services. :smiley:

    In any case, "not drinking beer at all" would be an effective mechanism for those people to manage what you term a self discipline problem, no? They can simply realize that it's not worth it for them, and find ways to modify their lifestyle that utilizes alternatives that they don't have the "self discipline" problem with -- i.e., going to a bar with their friends, but ordering a non alcoholic cocktail.

    I see a lot of people doing that with their food intake, in this case with sugar, or carbs -- and I don't see a problem with it, personally. If I go out with a friend, and he orders a soda instead of a beer, I'm going to assume he has a personal reason to do so. Ditto with someone who wants their pizza crust made out of cauliflower instead of bread. I think it's likely not very productive to see it and say, "hey, why don't you just order one beer, instead of that non alcoholic stuff?" That's just me.

    I recognize that I'm moving from the discussion of "bad" versus "bad for me" a little bit with this response, and I think that's likely going to go down the road of semantics, so I'm attempting to distill it down to the end point of the conversation, which is to say, what people do, why they do it, and what my reaction to it should be.

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    Laurend224 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Unless you have medical issues with sugar, don't worry about it.

    this..

    end thread/

    now...

    please...?


    We aren't that lucky.

    sigh...

    apparently not ...
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    Lezavargas wrote: »
    I dont concern myself too much when its naturally occuring sugar, i'd just track your refined and stay under in your calories, just my opinion though :)

    hmmm so one form of sugar is better than another???

    care to expound on that...?
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Lezavargas wrote: »
    I dont concern myself too much when its naturally occuring sugar, i'd just track your refined and stay under in your calories, just my opinion though :)

    hmmm so one form of sugar is better than another???

    care to expound on that...?

    Excessive fructose can be more damaging to the liver (the liver fatty acids) than excessive glucose!

    edit: -

    In fact scrap that, as all sugar is processed and metabolized by the body identically the statement above must be impossible - my bad!

  • JeffseekingV
    JeffseekingV Posts: 3,165 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Lezavargas wrote: »
    I dont concern myself too much when its naturally occuring sugar, i'd just track your refined and stay under in your calories, just my opinion though :)

    hmmm so one form of sugar is better than another???

    care to expound on that...?

    I remember seeing a thread that would probably clear up a lot of the common misunderstandings about foods
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Lezavargas wrote: »
    I dont concern myself too much when its naturally occuring sugar, i'd just track your refined and stay under in your calories, just my opinion though :)

    hmmm so one form of sugar is better than another???

    care to expound on that...?

    Excessive fructose can be more damaging to the liver (the liver fatty acids) than excessive glucose!
    based on what? I've not heard or seen that claim before.
  • Fat4Fuel2
    Fat4Fuel2 Posts: 280 Member
    Options
    Once ingested, sugar is sugar in the body. Doesn't matter the source or the process, the body responds to it the same. Also, eating veggies gives you all the vitamins and minerals you get from eating fruit.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    dbmata wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Lezavargas wrote: »
    I dont concern myself too much when its naturally occuring sugar, i'd just track your refined and stay under in your calories, just my opinion though :)

    hmmm so one form of sugar is better than another???

    care to expound on that...?

    Excessive fructose can be more damaging to the liver (the liver fatty acids) than excessive glucose!
    based on what? I've not heard or seen that claim before.

    Yeah my bad - I must have dreamed it!

  • runner475
    runner475 Posts: 1,236 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »

    What about the people that don't have diabetes? Because it seems like every time a sugar conversation comes up we hear "In diabetics and insulin resistant" but what about the non?

    Non Diabetic people stay out of Sugar Rant thread. Simple.

    Life is not complicated. One can make it complicated and stressful by all means but actually it's not
    Simple Definition of Life = <3
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,951 Member
    Options
    dbmata wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Lezavargas wrote: »
    I dont concern myself too much when its naturally occuring sugar, i'd just track your refined and stay under in your calories, just my opinion though :)

    hmmm so one form of sugar is better than another???

    care to expound on that...?

    Excessive fructose can be more damaging to the liver (the liver fatty acids) than excessive glucose!
    based on what? I've not heard or seen that claim before.

    Yeah my bad - I must have dreamed it!
    Are you on something?

    Why would you make that up?