The Sugar Conspiracy

Originally posted by Skyfloating


Since thinking about sugar I have noticed that its everywhere, even in stuff we dont normally suspect it in. It enters our bodies as sucrose, lactose, fructose, glucose not only in sweets, candy, cake, pudding but also in ordinary foods (meat, bread, milk, etc.).

Well, yes. I don't know why you are surprised by this considering that sugar (also referred to as saccharides or carbohydrates) is very much a natural constituent of fairly much every organism I can think of.

Because refined sugar contains no minerals, enzymes, proteins or fibers the body must work overtime to extract nutrients and macronutrients such as calcium and magnesium and potassium from elsewhere. This causes a lack of nutrients overall. Sugar has also been linked to ADHD and Depression (not to mention Diabetes and rotting teeth).

Anyone who goes around eating spoons full of nothing but refined sugar gets all the hypoglycaemia and nutrient deficiencies they deserve. By definition, no sugar contains minerals, enzymes or proteins. And for your information, plant fibres consist of cellulose - which is nothing but sugar, albeit a non-digestable one for us.

As another poster said, sugars are a staple part of our diet. The problem with many people is moderation.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


Very nice. Argue semantics, why don't you.

Sugar, by its definition, is not very definitive. It's quite clear that the OP is referring to sucrose (or other sweeteners that contain glucose and fructose) NOT the ambiguous term sugar, which could/can refer to mono/poly saccharides, depending on the context (e.g. when people refer to blood sugar, they specifically mean blood glucose, a specific type of sugar that is much different than others).

And, as I'm sure you're aware, saccharides have different metabolic reactions depending on their biochemical constituency.

. And for your information, plant fibres consist of cellulose - which is nothing but sugar, albeit a non-digestable one for us.

Ahhhh....yes. Polysaccharides. You did forget, however, that we are able to ferment small amounts of cellulose. This process, in turn, ends in the byproduct of....that's right, FAT.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


It doesn't matter what the identity of the sugar is, my point still stands. The only one who appears to be arguing semantics is you.

I dont smoke drink or do drugs.
But chocolate has me hook't.
I can eat it untill I feel sick.
its not the suger. but the chocolate.
coco.
maybe I should try to eat just coco?

HOW SUGAR HARMS
The complex carbohydrates found in vegetables, grains, and fruits are good for you; the simple sugars found in sodas, candies, icings, and packaged treats can do harm, at least when eaten in excess. It's as simple as that. Here's why:

Excess sugar depresses immunity. Studies have shown that downing 75 to 100 grams of a sugar solution (about 20 teaspoons of sugar, or the amount that is contained in two average 12-ounce sodas) can suppress the body's immune responses. Simple sugars, including glucose, table sugar, fructose, and honey caused a fifty- percent drop in the ability of white blood cells to engulf bacteria. In contrast, ingesting a complex carbohydrate solution (starch) did not lower the ability of these white blood cells to engulf bacteria.

www.askdrsears.com...

I used to think like that too. "I am not hooked on sugar, I am just a chocoholic."

So... one time I bought these 100% raw cacao nibs, but it didn't work for me. I was still craving those sweet chocolate bars. Cacao is not that addictive (but interestingly, cravings for chocolate can arise if you have iron deficiency), it really is just the sugar that gets us hooked.

In my opinon, the only thing that works for sugar cravings is just quitting it completely, cold turkey.

Former hypoglycemic and heavy MT. Dew drinker. 2 months almost sugar free. Mostly to be come glucose free. I consume small amounts of sugar from fruits and milk. That's it. It was a piece of cake in a high protein diet. First four days I craved sugar at night when I was tired and trying to stay awake, instead of listening to my body. It wasn't that bad though. My biggest thing to watch my sugar grams very closely because I never thought about sugar being in things like milk and cheese before.

While I was never an over eater, I used to have to eat the moment I woke up and then snack all day long. I could never eat large meals at one sitting. If I didn't I would get dizzy and become a major B. Now I can go half the day with out eating.

Late for the party but an interesting party it was so I'm going to toss in my 2 pennies.

I have gone through many sugar / non-sugar phases and I see an increase in energy in the non-sugar phases BUT those are generally accompanied by eating more reasonable portions and exercise.

The key is as has been pointed out here moderation. If you watch your portions and exercise you are going to be healthier and have more energy than a couch potato who eats huge portions with 0 sugar.

I don't think this is a real conspiracy and I think it is big because in a consumer driven market people are going to go after what is yummy to them (yeah I just said yummy). I think many might prefer fruit juice. I love OJ but only not-from Concentrate OJ. 1 liter NFC OJ at its cheapest is around 3 USD. I can almost always find name brand soda for 1/3 the price. Why? Supply and demand plus it is cheaper to make soda than make OJ. No conspiracy there and I think it is the same across the board.

It is cheaper to make food that tastes good using lots of sugars and HFCS. If it is cheaper and people go for it they will do it. That is how business works.

Finally back to the point of moderation. Some high school nutrition teacher proved he could lose weight and remain healthy by everything normally measured eating only sugary treats with a small calorie intake of leafy vegetables and a multivitamin. Here is the story on the Twinkie diet

I think this shows that many of the ill effects being shown for sugar have more to do with portion control than anything else.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd


Sugar, by its definition, is not very definitive. It's quite clear that the OP is referring to sucrose (or other sweeteners that contain glucose and fructose) NOT the ambiguous term sugar, which could/can refer to mono/poly saccharides, depending on the context (e.g. when people refer to blood sugar, they specifically mean blood glucose, a specific type of sugar that is much different than others).

Thanks for clarifying. I am indeed referring to all those words that end with ose.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Just to clarify...

SUGAR DOESNT CAUSE DIABETES.....ITS A MYTH

Source

reply to post by jrmcleod


Myth: The American Diabetes Association knows what they're talking about!

Fact: They certainly do not! (nice try though, Jr)

Sugar is quite the ambiguous term, firstly, and may refer to many types of sugars, many of which aren't inherently dangerous to the metabolic system. Let's assume, however, that when you, and the ADA, refer to sugar, you're talking about table sucrose (fructose/glucose) or HFCS (fructose/glucose).

Fact: Biochemistry has precedence over any 3 letter word association, such as ADA.

Biochemistry Summary: Fructose consumed frequently, whether in the form of sucrose or HFCS, will undoubtedly lead to hepatic insulin resistance (that's the liver, fyi), which leads to increased hyperinsulinemia, which leads to hyperglycemia...which, btw, is Type 2 DIABETES.

Biochemistry Detail: Fructose is metabolized ONLY in the liver, the byproduct of which is VLDL (triglycerides). An overload of fructose will lead to hypertriglyceridemia, which is essentially elevated serum VLDL(very low density lipoprotein), which has an unpleasant "side-effect" of becoming LDL. Regardless, this chronic state of elevated blood lipids leads to, at least the science suggests, insulin resistance in the liver (hepatic insulin resistance).

Hepatic IR, in very basic terms, means the insulin receptors in the liver aren't very...receptive, they become less sensitive to insulin uptake. Since insulin plays a vital role in metabolic function in the liver, the pancreas produces more insulin to compensate, thus leading to chronically elevated blood levels of insulin. This situation is what ultimately leads to systemic insulin resistance (whole-body) going from the muscles, then eventually arriving at a halt when the fat cells become insulin resistant, which is the point at which Type 2 diabetics become insulin dependent (their bodies are unable to produce enough insulin to clear blood glucose to the cells because the cells are resistant).

So, yes, sugar does cause diabetes through insulin resistance. It doesn't cause Type1 diabetes, that'd be pretty absurd. It does, however, cause type 2 diabetes that can lead to type 1, or insulin dependency.

I'm in Asia now. The food's great apart from the fact that white rice is sold in most restaurants. I was brought up on brown rice and brown bread. I was healthier than most people at school. I hardly ever got ill until I left home and started eating crap. White rice is refined like white sugar.

On days that I 'treat myself' to white rice, I notice my mood and energy levels are low. After 2 days I have to lay off it, and buy some red rice and cook at home. On white rice days I feel lethargic and depressed. I'm sensitive to food. I have no idea how people on a high sugar diet can carry on for so long.

Asian cooks and supermarkets make three mistakes:

Too much white rice,
Too much MSG
Too much frying.

Apart from that, Asian people eat a very healthy and varied diet. I feel a little bit of pity for families that
can't afford red rice (2 dollars vs 70 cents per kilo) but then I remember that a lot of them spend cash on cigarrettes. Furthermore, green leafy vegetables are ridiculously cheap, and affordable to even dirt poor families.
Poor families in Asia could eat boiled leaves + local fruits in spices, instead of white rice + MSG. It's what I eat.
I can afford any food I want but I still eat a peasant diet, cos it makes me feel strong and calm.

God + Nature provides us with all the health-giving food we want, and we turn our noses up at it. Then we go running to the hospital 5 years down the road.

And we can't blame lack of education either. Everyone knows modern food's crap.

Forget chemtrails, 9/11, fluoride, whatever. The primary agent of our self-imprisonment is food.

*

One day we will return to our birthright staple, which is eating tons of dark, leafy greens or sprouts.

Great thread, Skyfloating.

Peace on Earth.

Originally posted by hazey
I love sugar and can't imagine it's even half as bad as high fructose corn syrup. What would you rather have the government putting in our sodas as sweeteners? Sugar? HFCS? Aspartame? I'll choose sugar.

How about Stevia, a natural plant based sweetener with no or very little calories and carbs, I think it's the way of the future and if you look at the history of sugar it's easily as dark as the history of oil or pharma, loved the name "Big Sugar" apt.

Originally posted by Jinglelord
.

It is cheaper to make food that tastes good using lots of sugars and HFCS. If it is cheaper and people go for it they will do it. That is how business works.

spot on, i was recently diagnosed with fructose malabsorption which means i have to avoid most fruit and HFCS as well as eat gluten free, heres some info from wikipedia about its history

HFCS was first introduced by Richard O. Marshall and Earl R. Kooi in 1957. They were, however, unsuccessful in making it viable for mass production.[24] The industrial production process and creation was made by Dr. Y. Takasaki at the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology of Ministry of International Trade and Industry of Japan in 1965–1970. Dr. Y. Takasaki is known to many as the creator of HFCS. HFCS was rapidly introduced to many processed foods and soft drinks in the U.S. from about 1975 to 1985.

I personally believe its the cause for alot more diseases, i wonder if their has been a rise in ill health from 1975 onwards aorund the world, if so i wouldent be suprised if HFCS might be a contributing factor

reply to post by Uncertain1


Red Bull is also full of Aspartame, which is a serious neurotoxin and should be avoided like the plague!

see the work of Dr. Russell L. Blaylock M.D.

'Exitotoxins The taste that kills" - ISBN 978-0-929173-25-2

and

" Health and Nutrition Secrets that can save your life" - ISBN 0-929173-48-1

Aspartame - MSG - Flouride- Mercury - Cadmium - Lead - Aluminium - and Vaccines.....

Please research Aspartame before you have another Red Bull.....

Peace.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
This thread is to examine the possibility of sugar as a conspiracy or at least a self-inflicted menace. I am by no means an anti-sugar fanatic but I have noticed that in periods of refraining from sugar I have felt more energetic and alive whereas phases of frequent sugar-consumption have seemed to be linked to feeling down and dull. I would like to challenge anyone who is a frequent-sugar eater to go a few days without any at all and report back whether there was not a significant shift in mood.

I sort of already did what you suggest. I've never really been a sweets person. I don't buy candy (except to give as a gift to someone else), I don't buy cookies and I don't eat cake. Haven't really eaten chocolate since I was a kid.

But... my one weakness used to be Dr. Pepper. Used to drink it everyday- breakfast, lunch and dinner. I suppose whether Dr. Pepper has sugar or corn syrup in it depends on what part of the country it is made from (like Coca-Cola in Hawaii has sugar, but in the Mid-West it has corn syrup).

Years ago, I eliminated all Dr. Pepper from my diet. But I still love tea. So I guess my prob is really the caffeine addiction. When I switched to drinking tea- I sweetened it with organic honey. That got really expensive- the cost of organic honey. So then I switched to organic Agave sweetner. Which I still buy- but prices seem to be going up on that too. Organic sugar is cheaper lately than organic Agave, so I sometimes buy that instead.

And I don't really consume any sugar other than that- except what's naturally in fruits, vegies and other foods. (unless I make the mistake of buying orange juice, non-organic - I guess some of them put yucky corn syrup in it and it tastes funny).

It's not just general energy once sugar is cut out of the diet-- but clarity in thought. True brain energy.

For those that don't know it- Agave is the sweetest all natural sweetner and if you look properly at the labels - certain brands are diabetic-safe. It's made from a cactus, but depending on the brand, it can be as sweet as maple syrup.

Neutrophils, an essential part of the innate immune system, prefer to engulf refined carbs (sugar, orange juice, honey, sucrose, fructose, glucose) over bacteria.

From wikipedia:

"Neutrophils have a preference to engulf refined carbohydrates[14][15][16] (from ingested glucose, fructose, sucrose, honey and orange juice[14]) over bacteria.[14] In 1973 Sanchez et al. found that the neutrophil phagocytic capacity to engulf bacteria is affected when simple sugars are digested,[14] and that fasting strengthens the neutrophils' phagocytic capacity to engulf bacteria.[14] However, the digestion of normal starches has no effect. It was concluded that the function, and not the number, of phagocytes in engulfing bacteria was altered by the ingestion of sugars.[14] In 2007 researchers at the Whitehead Institute of Biomedical Research found that given a selection of sugars, neutrophils engulf some types of sugar preferentially.[15][16]"


If you are serious about your health, avoid this filth.

Fasting improves neutrophil immune function.

I found cutting out sugar was like pulling the plug on 'entertainment',
pop culture,
and esteem values rooted in approval.
It was hard, until I realized, eventually, the incomprehensibly high opportunity costs.

# 882