It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by postings
Recently I was talking with a parent about diet as it is related to children. They said that there is too much fear of sugar these days, and that sugar actually calms their child. Anyone notice the same observations?
-P
Originally posted by mattison0922
Irrespective of whether or not the sugar 'calms' someone's child is not the real issue. It has been known for years that sugar reduces high density lipoproteins, sugar leads to deficiencies in chromium, copper, and zinc, at least. Sugar interferes with calcium and magnesium absorption. Because of this, it's thought that sugar can contribute to osteoporosis. In addition to this, there is evidence suggesting that sugar can influence the formation of gall stones, heart disease, appendicitis, hemmorhoids, varicose veins, dental caries, multiple sclerosis. This is just a small sampling of the various health maladies that can be linked to sugar. Refined sugar is garbage... no two ways about it.
Originally posted by RedBalloon
Where the heck are you getting this info from????? Sugar, on a molecular level, cannot do any of the above. Everything we EAT is turned into sugar by the body. A poor diet, which might include lots of refined sugar, can cause deficiencies and health problems, but its not the presence of sugar that does it, its the lack of all other nutrient dense foods.
originally posted by RedBalloon
Is sugar addictive? Uhh no. Sugar = glucose = fuel. Everything we eat is converted to glucose at one point or another, and excess glucose is stored as fat. Sugar is addictive to the same point that food is addictive.
Originally posted by mattison0922
You're missing the point. The molecular role of sugar isn't in question. As you said in your post " poor diet, which might include lots of refined sugar, can cause deficiencies and health problems..." So... what's your beef? Sugar, in its unprocessed form, with associated micronutrients ISN'T the problem, highly refined, nutrient depleted sugar is. Processing food requires nutrients, vitamins, minerals, trace elements, etc. The source of these substances is your food. Consumption of empty calories, like refined sugar, has the potential and frequently does place your body in a 'depleted state' with respect to nutrients. Please note the use of terms and phrases such as 'can contribute to,' 'leads to deficiencies in,' and 'evidence suggesting.'
Where did I get this information... specifically, I can't say... mostly from years and years of experience as a biochemist. An interesting place to verify some of this information is mercola's site. Though I'd be happy to discuss specifics here with you.
Originally posted by RedBalloon
I think you're missing my point. The sugar itself isn't necessarily the evil here. It's what you don't eat when you eat loads of sugar instead of other nutrient rich food. I said essentiall the same thing you had above in my post. Noting those terms doesn't solve the problem of people thinking sugar itself is a dangerous substance. Spoken plainly, its the absence of other food, and not the sugar that causes problems. You seem to be echoing the exact thing I said above.
Umm - thats looks like a for-profit site to me. I'm skeptical of any for profit website touting health or nutrition information. From a book to a program to recomended products - this site is more for profit than for health. Is this your site personally?
But anyway, sugar is sugar. Refined sugar doesn't magically suck more vitamins out of your body than other sugar.
I'd be happy to read your references if you provide links to them, but I doubt they say sugar is the cause of these maladies.
I have no beef other than people thinking sugar is some magical substance and acknowledging what's really lacking. Moderation is a beautiful thing.
Originally posted by mattison0922
Magically, no. It doesn't do it by magic. It's done by well understood biochemical processes... there's no big mystery here.
Since all the refs. I've provided are science articles, I don't have links. I prefer to get my info from primary sources, rather than relying on someone else to tell me what a study says.
You can doubt these refs. all you want, but doubting things without actually reading them doesn't do much for your credibility. I wouldn't have posted the refs. if I wasn't reasonably familiar with the conclusions indicated by them.
There are scientific explanations for the claims made. For whatever reason though, you seem to only be concerned with what you believe to be true.
Originally posted by RedBalloon
Specifically, what is this well understood biochemical process that makes refined sugar so much worse than regular sugar from say, a grape?
"Copper deficiency was induced in rats by feeding sucrose or starch diets deficient in copper... Feeding sucrose but not starch diets deficient in copper magnified the copper deficiency and resulted in 60% mortality. Although both deficient diets contained the same concentration of copper, the hepatic copper concentration of rats fed sucrose was reduced nearly threefold compared to rats fed starch.
My credibility? Are you kidding? How does asking for a link to sources threaten my credability?
Hi pot! I'm kettle. Nice to meet you.
(quoted by RedBallon)
As for sugar giving you diabetes - nope. Excess weight from any overconsumption of calories can give you diabetes.
Originally posted by cybertroy
My guess is Diabetes can be overcome with a proper diet.
Empty sugar calories can make you fat. It's funny how low fat items get the stamp of healthy, yet they can be loaded with sugar, or artificial things.
Troy