Sugar May Be Bad, But Is the Alternative Worse?‎

Sugar May Be Bad, But Is the Alternative Worse?‎

www.wired.com

A controversial proposal would regulate sugar as a toxic substance, and not simply because it’s a calorie-rich enabler of obesity. Some researchers say it’s intrinsically dangerous, not unlike alcohol or tobacco, with unique properties that set off a hormonal cascade ending in higher risks of heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes.

It’s not a scientifically certain proposition, though a growing body of research suggests it may very well be true, and the implications are thorny. Even people sympathetic to public health-based regulations may balk at treating pastries as cigarettes, a

(visit the link for the full news article)

What do you think?

My thoughts are that they are both toxic.
Our body produces its won sugars by breaking down carbs, fats and proteins in whole foods.
No need for an additional toxic content be it sugar or sweeteners.
This is a hot topic.
I would like to see all supermarkets stacked with at least 5o% whole and unprocessed foods.
What do you think?

www.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I think its just another way to hamper our freedoms.

Whats next? Regulating salt? They just need to let people eat/do what they want. In the end every person is responsible for himself and the consequences. Don't need no government telling me what I can and cannot eat.

hmmm.......follow the money trail and see who's lobbying for this . I guarantee shady .

Personally, as someone who has to study word etymology and pays attention to grammar ..I do not like the wording of this article . I think it's intentionally confusing and a propaganda piece.

So nanny government has to step in, because we are incapable of taking care of ourselves? Is this what this boils down to? Nanny Government needs to crack down and punish us for our unhealthy ways , while behind the curtains they support the very things that contribute to the problem ?


I call BS . The government has no place regulating our diet when it comes to supporting UNNATURAL foods over natural foods .

No, we can do without the 'war on sugar'.

People selling twinkies on street corners while we burn sugar plantations.

added Sugar, corn syrups, or its artificial sugar replacements are all ACID forming.

STEVIA is ALKALINE

watch...bacon will be the next victim

Years ago...sugar was called 'white death'. This was at a time when sugar was refined to an inch of its 'life'. In this 'refined' state, it contains no, I'll say it again...no, nutritional value...

In this state, it is addictive...how many spoonfuls of sugar in a can of 'a well-known cola drink'?

I believe there is an issue with corn syrup in the US. I have no idea what this stuff is...
...but, if it is anything like the white death, I would be wary too...

There is enough natural sugars in fruits and vegetable to power the body, when eaten as a part of a balanced diet...without adding any extra...this goes for salt also...

...and this is why they are linked so strongly to the kinds of conditions that a lifetime of accumulated ingestion will present.

Eat what you want...but if you're prepared to pillory smokers (for one) for taxing the health system with your hard earned tax dollars, think of what a lifetime of sugar and salt will do...

Akushla

Why is MAPLE syrup so expensive?



Waaaaa

reply to post by akushla99

I remember a time of three white deaths:
sugar, flour and salt.
seems like white truly is the color of mourning after all

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by akushla99

 

I remember a time of three white deaths:
sugar, flour and salt.
seems like white truly is the color of mourning after all

He he...nice one...

On a morning radio program today they were speaking about the prevalence of chronic and long term diseases in comparison to grandma and grandpa's day. Conclusion was, that...if a bought packet of prepared food has ingredients on it that you have no idea what it is...i.e. coloring, flavouring, stabilisers, coagulants etc, you shouldn't be putting the trash in your body. Grandma made 'one egg' cakes, just flour, sugar, milk, eggs...that's it! Flavour was the topping or sauce, which was also 'handmade', from scratch...no obesity, no stories of overweight children, children with sugar intolerances, peanut intolerances, red dye intolerances, children on prozac or other prescription drugs...

Keeping it stupidly simple (KISS) has gone out the door...now, a coffee comes in 300 varieties, mochacinno, capuccino, soyachinno...all beans handpicked by ethiopean maidens on the full moon of the 23 year of a grand cycle...now that's a coffee...give me a break...or, what was that other one...coffee beans shat from the behinds of some exotic animal...stop the world, I wanna get off!

Akushla

reply to post by BBalazs


I'm sorry , but my problem is not so much removing unhealthy items from the food supply (idealistic) as it's going to play out, as the Obama administration already had proposed a sort of "sin tax " on junk food . NOT putting responsibility on the people who create the food ...but the people who buy the food .

This is the "sin tax" that is being supported and it is a regressive tax, because the cheapest foods have the poorest nutritional value.

The truth is , is that companies will keep putting crap in our food ..and the buyers will have to pay the price.

Aww man!

Sugar is my favourite thing in the world,right after alcohol,drugs and tobacco!

reply to post by akushla99

Here is a study that debunks the myth that ancients lived until 3o.
If you take health into consideration, we are the sickest generation yet.
I suspect that if more ancient bones are found, that age will keep going up, as many, including harvard paleontologists have speculated.
The link not to harvard, but age study:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

PS: it will be discredited. They don't want you to KNOW.
The greatest enduring fraudulent myth is the one playing the age.
Yes, our ancients lived slightly less, but generally in much better health.
They had to! As they had to work, etc.

reply to post by BBalazs


I would tend to agree with you , however.... people are kept alive these days due to modern medicine , that would not have been alive to breed decades ago .

Ailments that would have killed us while young , are controlled now so that we can breed . And a population boom on top of that fact would explain the rise in disease.

I think it's ironic , that in preventing disease , modern medicine has actually allowed people who wouldn't normally live to breed ....to breed and cause a rise in all kinds of genetic diseases.

reply to post by paleorchid13


I agree with you.
Modern medicine has many benefits.
Modern life has many benefits.
But perhaps if people knew how long our ancestors lived and in what health, they may reconsider SOME of the modern medicine, and almost ALL of modern food production.
This is the point of instigation and rebellion.
Anyway, thats my point.


According to modern nutritional guidelines and well meaning vegetable people, HALF the world should be dead, when in fact they are in incredible health.
Makes ME WONDER.

reply to post by BBalazs


Modern food production is a joke , but the laws and taxes should fall on those that make the food . Instead we're seeing penalties on consumers, holistic healing , and herbs and natural homeopathic medicines. We're on the same page . When modern medicine refuses to recognize the holistic element , it fails .

reply to post by defcon5

They 'even' give you sugar to test for cancer. Hmmmm.

You do realize that glucose is the ONLY sugar that is used as fuel in our cells, healthy and cancerous alike?

Glucose is THE sugar that can get through the cell wall. They give it to you intravenously when you are in the hospital... Not to kill you, to keep you alive.

Fast food is also a calorie-rich enabler of obesity. It's a major player in heart disease and high cholesterol and who knows what else. Are they going to ban it and label it toxic?

(And to the poster that asked about maple syrup: It's expensive because it takes a gallon of sap to produce one teaspoon of maple syrup. But it's oh, sooooo good!)