Don't Swallow It: Six Health Myths You Should Ignore

[ccc]

Whilst too much sugar is clearly not good - and it is in far too high amounts in many processed foods - i do find the 'its evil' chat a bit mental .

For example breast milk is full of it. And yes of course that is for babies and not adults. However to think nature fires sugar into you when young - but this suddenly becomes 'poison' when you get older makes no sense all.

I am pretty certain a reasonable amount of sugar in a diet is perfectly fine for us. Just don't overdose. Common sense.

[MrPin]

Whilst too much sugar is clearly not good - and it is in far too high amounts in many processed foods - i do find the 'its evil' chat a bit mental .

For example breast milk is full of it. And yes of course that is for babies and not adults. However to think nature fires sugar into you when young - but this suddenly becomes 'poison' when you get older makes no sense all.

I am pretty certain a reasonable amount of sugar in a diet is perfectly fine for us. Just don't overdose. Common sense.

I'll bet you still like it!

[chronyx]

Whilst too much sugar is clearly not good - and it is in far too high amounts in many processed foods - i do find the 'its evil' chat a bit mental .

For example breast milk is full of it. And yes of course that is for babies and not adults. However to think nature fires sugar into you when young - but this suddenly becomes 'poison' when you get older makes no sense all.

I am pretty certain a reasonable amount of sugar in a diet is perfectly fine for us. Just don't overdose. Common sense.

It's also full of sat. fat which is also poison.

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

Actually uric acid is the main antioxidant in humans. Want to know how to boost your uric acid? Eat a bunch of sugary fruit.

I didnt use the word 'main' as it cant be defined and is subjective. I used the word primary, because glutathione is the first antioxidant to be reduced from the NADPH produced in the pentose phosphate pathway.

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

For example breast milk is full of it.

The main sugar in breast milk is lactose, not sucrose.

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

And how is sugar poison when your brain absolutely requires it to stay alive? You can't live without glucose, it's the body's preferred fuel. You are walking around with about a kilo of "poison" in your liver and muscles right now!

Right, i gave you the benefit of the doubt with the uric acid comment, thinking you might be a biochemist, but to mix up the chemical compounds glucose and sucrose says to me you have no idea what you are on about.

[fluffy666]

Right, i gave you the benefit of the doubt with the uric acid comment, thinking you might be a biochemist, but to mix up the chemical compounds glucose and sucrose says to me you have no idea what you are on about.

Unless strictly stated otherwise, I would expect the perm 'Sugar' to refer to all of the common mono and di-saccharides as a group - Glucose, Fructose, Maltose, Sucrose, et. al.

And if you have a problem with any part of the article, maybe actually explaining why it is wrong with a bit of detail and references, rather than random accusations of bias/propaganda combined with nitpicking of posters you disagree with, would look a bit better. You are coming across as a bit of a crank right now.

[MrPin]

The main sugar in breast milk is lactose, not sucrose.

Love the mono-sacharides! Are you a "tit man" too?

[Turned Out Nice Again]

Just to clarify, when I talk about sugar being "poison", I'm specifically referring to pure sucrose (and arguably, all processed grains), not fruits or veg that happen to contain it (packaged up with fibre and nutrients), in the same way that a number of healthy foods contain cyanide.

[MrPin]

Just to clarify, when I talk about sugar being "poison", I'm specifically referring to pure sucrose (and arguably, all processed grains), not fruits or veg that happen to contain it (packaged up with fibre and nutrients), in the same way that a number of healthy foods contain cyanide.

Mine doesn't, I hope! So that's why I keep these bottles on amyl nitrite!

[Turned Out Nice Again]

Unless strictly stated otherwise, I would expect the perm 'Sugar' to refer to all of the common mono and di-saccharides as a group - Glucose, Fructose, Maltose, Sucrose, et. al.

And if you have a problem with any part of the article, maybe actually explaining why it is wrong with a bit of detail and references, rather than random accusations of bias/propaganda combined with nitpicking of posters you disagree with, would look a bit better. You are coming across as a bit of a crank right now.

I suppose it was inevitable that you'd pitch in supporting a debunking-type piece from an establishment source. Thanks for not disappointing.

[fluffy666]

Just to clarify, when I talk about sugar being "poison", I'm specifically referring to pure sucrose (and arguably, all processed grains), not fruits or veg that happen to contain it (packaged up with fibre and nutrients), in the same way that a number of healthy foods contain cyanide.

There's the concept of a 'glycemic load'.

Which is basically the amount and speed of glucose [+- other suigars that might be metabolised differently] hitting your bloodstream after a meal. So whilst eating an apple might mean a fairly slow hit of sugars, something like white pasta may provide a bigger 'sugar hit' because it is rapidly broken down and absorbed. The interesting thing is that it's possible to have a diet with a high glycemic load even if you are avoiding sugars.

And any diet that reduces the amount of processed food you eat will almost certainly reduce the glycemic load.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12940416

(amongst others, there's a fair literature)

[fluffy666]

I suppose it was inevitable that you'd pitch in supporting a debunking-type piece from an establishment source. Thanks for not disappointing.

Care to explain further?

[Turned Out Nice Again]

Care to explain further?

When did you ever seek to debunk an establishment source?

Same question to Snowy.

[fluffy666]

When did you ever seek to debunk an establishment source?

Same question to Snowy.

Sorry, should I prove my credentials as a Serious Internet Poster by declaring that My Pet Theory must be correct because Everyone Else Is Controlled By VIs?

[Turned Out Nice Again]

Sorry, should I prove my credentials as a Serious Internet Poster by declaring that My Pet Theory must be correct because Everyone Else Is Controlled By VIs?

just acknowledge a VI in an establishment source. once.

[ccc]

The main sugar in breast milk is lactose, not sucrose.

Maybe someone should tell that to the 'sugar is evil and poison' brigade. When describing something in such a manner they really should be more specific.

[fluffy666]

just acknowledge a VI in an establishment source. once.

There is a reason I would not do that.

Basically, over the past few decades a lot of discourse has been contaminated by post-modernism, of which a core tenet is that a person's statements are determined entirely by their 'worldview' and do not relate to any objective truth/reality, because such a reality does not really exist; and a corollary of this is that all world-views are taken as equivalent.

This may be valid when talking about the interpretation of historical texts, where the viewpoint of the writer may indeed heavily influence the work and this must be taken into account. However, it's been taken much further than that, to the point where people routinely disregard large chunks of well established science (or history) simply of the basis of 'worldview', or 'VI' which basically meant the same thing.

It's a poisonous style of argument, in my opinion, because it allows people to simply disregard any inconvenient observation that they don't like, and avoid backing up their own arguments, by simply pointing and claiming bias in the other guy's 'worldview'.

If a person really is saying something because they are a VI or paid propagandist, then it should be possible to show that they are wrong independently. And if you can't.. then how do you know they really are a VI? How would you tell they were just not telling the truth?

[Turned Out Nice Again]

There is a reason I would not do that.

Basically, over the past few decades a lot of discourse has been contaminated by post-modernism, of which a core tenet is that a person's statements are determined entirely by their 'worldview' and do not relate to any objective truth/reality, because such a reality does not really exist; and a corollary of this is that all world-views are taken as equivalent.

This may be valid when talking about the interpretation of historical texts, where the viewpoint of the writer may indeed heavily influence the work and this must be taken into account. However, it's been taken much further than that, to the point where people routinely disregard large chunks of well established science (or history) simply of the basis of 'worldview', or 'VI' which basically meant the same thing.

It's a poisonous style of argument, in my opinion, because it allows people to simply disregard any inconvenient observation that they don't like, and avoid backing up their own arguments, by simply pointing and claiming bias in the other guy's 'worldview'.

If a person really is saying something because they are a VI or paid propagandist, then it should be possible to show that they are wrong independently. And if you can't.. then how do you know they really are a VI? How would you tell they were just not telling the truth?

Thank you for your candour.

Your reply demonstrates the reason I characterize you, Snowflux and numerous others as "Naive Realists".

You completely underestimate the extent to which Consensus Reality is a construct. Not just history. Everything.

[fluffy666]

Thank you for your candour.

Your reply demonstrates the reason I characterize you, Snowflux and numerous others as "Naive Realists".

You completely underestimate the extent to which Consensus Reality is a construct. Not just history. Everything.

Pinning a label on people and then claiming that they are wrong because of that label is very postmodern..

Here's a thought for you: If people get the habit of empiricism and scientific skepticism, then it is very hard to lead them with rhetoric and promises. But if people can be persuaded that whatever they want to believe is really true - and humans are nothing if not subject to confirmation bias - you can make them eat s**t and they'll curse the person who tells them it smells.

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

Unless strictly stated otherwise, I would expect the perm 'Sugar' to refer to all of the common mono and di-saccharides as a group - Glucose, Fructose, Maltose, Sucrose, et. al.

And if you have a problem with any part of the article, maybe actually explaining why it is wrong with a bit of detail and references, rather than random accusations of bias/propaganda combined with nitpicking of posters you disagree with, would look a bit better. You are coming across as a bit of a crank right now.

The article is clearly about table sugar / sucrose.

And yet we have posters discussing glucose for the brain and confusing lactose and sucrose.

Which suggests a lot of confusion and a misunderstanding of the points made by other posters. regarding SUCROSE.

And you are wrong. In science sugars are referred to by their chemicals names (fructose, sucrose, lactose etc). Any article that mentions sugar as a general term is referring to sucrose, as it is not using correct scientific terminology, but layman's terms.

As stated before, the article is clearly talking about the disaccharide SUCROSE.

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

There's the concept of a 'glycemic load'.

Which is basically the amount and speed of glucose [+- other suigars that might be metabolised differently] hitting your bloodstream after a meal. So whilst eating an apple might mean a fairly slow hit of sugars, something like white pasta may provide a bigger 'sugar hit' because it is rapidly broken down and absorbed. The interesting thing is that it's possible to have a diet with a high glycemic load even if you are avoiding sugars.

And any diet that reduces the amount of processed food you eat will almost certainly reduce the glycemic load.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12940416

(amongst others, there's a fair literature)

You are wrong. You are talking about the glycaemic INDEX (the rate of absorption of the glucose content of food compared to white bread). The glycaemic load is the glycaemic index multiplied by the gram content of carbohydarte in the food.

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

Maybe someone should tell that to the 'sugar is evil and poison' brigade. When describing something in such a manner they really should be more specific.

I think you are confusing table sugar (sucrose) with a out-dated generic term (sugars) for simple mono- and disaccharides.

Lactose is a sugar. Fructose is a sugar. But 'sugar' is sucrose, the abbreviated form of 'table sugar'.

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

Pinning a label on people and then claiming that they are wrong because of that label is very postmodern..

Here's a thought for you: If people get the habit of empiricism and scientific skepticism, then it is very hard to lead them with rhetoric and promises. But if people can be persuaded that whatever they want to believe is really true - and humans are nothing if not subject to confirmation bias - you can make them eat s**t and they'll curse the person who tells them it smells.

You seem to believe that science is only able to be performed by men in white coats using government money. Science is just observing things.

Observation. That is all it is, anyone can do it.

[MrPin]

You seem to believe that science is only able to be performed by men in white coats using government money. Science is just observing things.

Observation. That is all it is, anyone can do it.

They can, but they don't!