the evil of sugar
slowandsteady44
Posts: 29 Member
now i love my reeces chocolate and breakfast cereal but i eat it knowing the truth about sugar....
thought this documentary would interest anyone who might not understand exactly how calculating the food companies are, and how bad for us sugar is!
good motivation to cut down!
link to the doc is here - its called secrets of sugar:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/secrets-sugar/
enjoy!
thought this documentary would interest anyone who might not understand exactly how calculating the food companies are, and how bad for us sugar is!
good motivation to cut down!
link to the doc is here - its called secrets of sugar:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/secrets-sugar/
enjoy!
0
Replies
-
I don't worry too much about eating sugar. I don't over indulge and pay attention to how much I eat cause sugar is in EVERYTHING. Even if you eat healthy, sugar is in that too.
I live once, so I'm not gonna worry about what in the heck actually goes into the stuff I eat and just try to eat as healthy as I can.0 -
Think the brand is called SummerRipe. It's a company in California that grows peaches, plums and nectarines, and this is a company who actually has scientists to check the sugar levels in their fruit. And if there's too little sugar, they don't ship it out.
That awesome peach is so delicious and juicy, and is nothing but solid sugar.0 -
I just had some clementines that were seriously sweet, OMG. They must have added extra sugar. Saboteurs, damn them!0
-
I'm thinking sugar is not evil after all. Yes!!0
-
Another pseudo documentary ...0
-
Good grief. I actually have a painful physical reaction to a certain level of sugar and I still don't think it's evil and I still eat it, often.0
-
queenliz99 wrote: »I'm thinking sugar is not evil after all. Yes!!
no, not naturally ocurring sugars in fruit that also come with a side of micronutrients. however refined sugar such as high fructose corn syrup - poisenous to our bodies.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Another pseudo documentary ...
if you watch the doc, i think you will find that it is not based on pseudo science.0 -
slowandsteady44 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »I'm thinking sugar is not evil after all. Yes!!
no, not naturally ocurring sugars in fruit that also come with a side of micronutrients. however refined sugar such as high fructose corn syrup - poisenous to our bodies.slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Another pseudo documentary ...
if you watch the doc, i think you will find that it is not based on pseudo science.
Your claim that refined sugar is poison, a fallacy, only furthers how inaccurate the film is.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »I'm thinking sugar is not evil after all. Yes!!
no, not naturally ocurring sugars in fruit that also come with a side of micronutrients. however refined sugar such as high fructose corn syrup - poisenous to our bodies.slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Another pseudo documentary ...
if you watch the doc, i think you will find that it is not based on pseudo science.
Your claim that refined sugar is poison, a fallacy, only furthers how inaccurate the film is.
i should have said refined sugar, i am not referring to naturally ocurring sugars that are found in fruit or just about any other whole food. please explain how this is inaccurate?
0 -
slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »I'm thinking sugar is not evil after all. Yes!!
no, not naturally ocurring sugars in fruit that also come with a side of micronutrients. however refined sugar such as high fructose corn syrup - poisenous to our bodies.slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Another pseudo documentary ...
if you watch the doc, i think you will find that it is not based on pseudo science.
Your claim that refined sugar is poison, a fallacy, only furthers how inaccurate the film is.
i should have said refined sugar, i am not referring to naturally ocurring sugars that are found in fruit or just about any other whole food. please explain how this is inaccurate?
Fructose is fructose, glucose is glucose, lactose is lactose, sucrose is sucrose ... chemically identical no matter the source and processed identically by the body no matter the source. Claiming that sugar from source X is fine while from source Y is poison is false.0 -
I agree besides natural sugars the others are evil and addictive unfortunately0
-
chrissypj88 wrote: »I agree besides natural sugars the others are evil and addictive unfortunately
How is an identical chemical fine in one source but poisonous and addictive from another?0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »I'm thinking sugar is not evil after all. Yes!!
no, not naturally ocurring sugars in fruit that also come with a side of micronutrients. however refined sugar such as high fructose corn syrup - poisenous to our bodies.slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Another pseudo documentary ...
if you watch the doc, i think you will find that it is not based on pseudo science.
Your claim that refined sugar is poison, a fallacy, only furthers how inaccurate the film is.
i should have said refined sugar, i am not referring to naturally ocurring sugars that are found in fruit or just about any other whole food. please explain how this is inaccurate?
Fructose is fructose, glucose is glucose, lactose is lactose, sucrose is sucrose ... chemically identical no matter the source and processed identically by the body no matter the source. Claiming that sugar from source X is fine while from source Y is poison is false.
sugars that occur naturally do not occur alone, they are found in foods that have protein and fibre in them which affect the way the sugar is metabolised - they slow the absorption down so the body can react efficiently. refined sugar comes with no such buffers, and spike insulin quickly - unnatural and very harmful. they might chemically be the same, but they are processed differently in the body.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »chrissypj88 wrote: »I agree besides natural sugars the others are evil and addictive unfortunately
How is an identical chemical fine in one source but poisonous and addictive from another?
Slow and steady and put it so not replying0 -
slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »I'm thinking sugar is not evil after all. Yes!!
no, not naturally ocurring sugars in fruit that also come with a side of micronutrients. however refined sugar such as high fructose corn syrup - poisenous to our bodies.slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Another pseudo documentary ...
if you watch the doc, i think you will find that it is not based on pseudo science.
Your claim that refined sugar is poison, a fallacy, only furthers how inaccurate the film is.
i should have said refined sugar, i am not referring to naturally ocurring sugars that are found in fruit or just about any other whole food. please explain how this is inaccurate?
Fructose is fructose, glucose is glucose, lactose is lactose, sucrose is sucrose ... chemically identical no matter the source and processed identically by the body no matter the source. Claiming that sugar from source X is fine while from source Y is poison is false.
sugars that occur naturally do not occur alone, they are found in foods that have protein and fibre in them which affect the way the sugar is metabolised - they slow the absorption down so the body can react efficiently. refined sugar comes with no such buffers, and spike insulin quickly - unnatural and very harmful. they might chemically be the same, but they are processed differently in the body.
All I can do is shake my head and hope you learn how to vet sources. Believing pseudo-documentaries is bad enough ... spreading their misconceptions requires people take their valuable time to correct you.
Protein spikes insulin without refined sugar present. So much for that flawed position.
Refined sugars are in fact natural coming from these things called plants. There goes another misstatement from you.0 -
chrissypj88 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »chrissypj88 wrote: »I agree besides natural sugars the others are evil and addictive unfortunately
How is an identical chemical fine in one source but poisonous and addictive from another?
Slow and steady and put it so not replying
You did reply while failing to answer. He was/is wrong.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »I'm thinking sugar is not evil after all. Yes!!
no, not naturally ocurring sugars in fruit that also come with a side of micronutrients. however refined sugar such as high fructose corn syrup - poisenous to our bodies.slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Another pseudo documentary ...
if you watch the doc, i think you will find that it is not based on pseudo science.
Your claim that refined sugar is poison, a fallacy, only furthers how inaccurate the film is.
i should have said refined sugar, i am not referring to naturally ocurring sugars that are found in fruit or just about any other whole food. please explain how this is inaccurate?
Fructose is fructose, glucose is glucose, lactose is lactose, sucrose is sucrose ... chemically identical no matter the source and processed identically by the body no matter the source. Claiming that sugar from source X is fine while from source Y is poison is false.
sugars that occur naturally do not occur alone, they are found in foods that have protein and fibre in them which affect the way the sugar is metabolised - they slow the absorption down so the body can react efficiently. refined sugar comes with no such buffers, and spike insulin quickly - unnatural and very harmful. they might chemically be the same, but they are processed differently in the body.
All I can do is shake my head and hope you learn how to vet sources. Believing pseudo-documentaries is bad enough ... spreading their misconceptions requires people take their valuable time to correct you.
Protein spikes insulin without refined sugar present. So much for that flawed position.
Refined sugars are in fact natural coming from these things called plants. There goes another misstatement from you.
they are called refined because they go through a process of refining - it comes from plants but it is then processed, hence the name. it does not just come straight from the plant without processing involved that strips it down to its basic molecule.
protein slows the absorption of sugar down in the body - fact.
if you think that refined sugar is anything but bad for our health, you are the one spreading some dangerous misconceptions.
0 -
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.0 -
slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »slowandsteady44 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »I'm thinking sugar is not evil after all. Yes!!
no, not naturally ocurring sugars in fruit that also come with a side of micronutrients. however refined sugar such as high fructose corn syrup - poisenous to our bodies.slowandsteady44 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Another pseudo documentary ...
if you watch the doc, i think you will find that it is not based on pseudo science.
Your claim that refined sugar is poison, a fallacy, only furthers how inaccurate the film is.
i should have said refined sugar, i am not referring to naturally ocurring sugars that are found in fruit or just about any other whole food. please explain how this is inaccurate?
Fructose is fructose, glucose is glucose, lactose is lactose, sucrose is sucrose ... chemically identical no matter the source and processed identically by the body no matter the source. Claiming that sugar from source X is fine while from source Y is poison is false.
sugars that occur naturally do not occur alone, they are found in foods that have protein and fibre in them which affect the way the sugar is metabolised - they slow the absorption down so the body can react efficiently. refined sugar comes with no such buffers, and spike insulin quickly - unnatural and very harmful. they might chemically be the same, but they are processed differently in the body.
All I can do is shake my head and hope you learn how to vet sources. Believing pseudo-documentaries is bad enough ... spreading their misconceptions requires people take their valuable time to correct you.
Protein spikes insulin without refined sugar present. So much for that flawed position.
Refined sugars are in fact natural coming from these things called plants. There goes another misstatement from you.
they are called refined because they go through a process of refining - it comes from plants but it is then processed, hence the name. it does not just come straight from the plant without processing involved that strips it down to its basic molecule.
protein slows the absorption of sugar down in the body - fact.
if you think that refined sugar is anything but bad for our health, you are the one spreading some dangerous misconceptions.
Digestion does the same thing as what you claim refining does.
Protein spikes insulin ... fiber slows absorption.
The content of your own posts undermines your position. You've conceded the sugars are identical then claimed other factors impact how rapidly those identical molecules are absorbed. Ergo, the molecule isn't the issue.
0 -
-
I'm waiting for Mercola ... that quack always gets used as a source in these types of threads.0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »I'm waiting for Mercola ... that quack always gets used as a source in these types of threads.
here
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html0 -
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, and has been proven to be harmful to our health. you seem to equate weight to health, and while its true if you are overweight you are at a higher risk of certain cancers/diabetes/disease, being slim and not going over your daily calorie amount yet still having a diet high in refined sugar can lead to internal fat on the liver and other vital organs, and hypertension. you may not be fat, but you are still unhealthy. a poison is defined as something that causes harm to your health. i think sugar is a poison, i will agree to disagree with you. goodnight.
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, and has been proven to be harmful to our health. you seem to equate weight to health, and while its true if you are overweight you are at a higher risk of certain cancers/diabetes/disease, being slim and not going over your daily calorie amount yet still having a diet high in refined sugar can lead to internal fat on the liver and other vital organs, and hypertension. you may not be fat, but you are still unhealthy. a poison is defined as something that causes harm to your health. i think sugar is a poison, i will agree to disagree with you. goodnight.
There is no proof which is why the fear mongering crowd like Mercola are easily rebuffed. "I think" is an indicator that even you know there is no proof of your claims.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »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, and has been proven to be harmful to our health. you seem to equate weight to health, and while its true if you are overweight you are at a higher risk of certain cancers/diabetes/disease, being slim and not going over your daily calorie amount yet still having a diet high in refined sugar can lead to internal fat on the liver and other vital organs, and hypertension. you may not be fat, but you are still unhealthy. a poison is defined as something that causes harm to your health. i think sugar is a poison, i will agree to disagree with you. goodnight.
There is no proof which is why the fear mongering crowd like Mercola are easily rebuffed. "I think" is an indicator that even you know there is no proof of your claims.
i think is not an indication of having no proof. science is science because things are never proved, they are disproved. i cant claim 100% that sugar is a poison, just like you cant claim it is. please go on sciencedirect, a peer reviewed journal site and research refined sugar - you will find plenty of evidence.
0 -
“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.0 -
"Once the sugar passes through the stomach and reaches the small intestine, it doesn’t matter if it came from an apple or a soft drink." ... again, your link.0
-
Tinfoil hats are clearly still in fashion.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions