Sugar May Be Bad, But Is the Alternative Worse?‎

reply to post by defcon5


I try to avoid HFCS and artificial sweeteners as much as possible.

I do like to drink pop and tea sometimes but I try to use stuff made with actual sugar and reduce my consumption wherever possible. Despite this, I've still lost 90lbs over a few months just by portion control and walking.

Originally posted by butcherguy
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.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by butcherguy
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.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I've also seen where they give cancer patients candy if they are having a difficult time getting the scan they want because it makes the cancer cells show up easier for them.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 2/7/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

Yes, the candy is most likely 50% glucose to begin with, since sucrose is a sugar with a 50/50 glucose/fructose composition. If the candy is made from high fructose corn sugar, it is anywhere from 45 to 58 percent glucose and 42 to 55 percent fructose.

In any event, before it goes into a cell in the human body, the candy must be in the form of glucose, so the other sugars involved are digested or converted by the body into glucose and various waste products.

reply to post by butcherguy


I have one sincere question for you.
Do you really think that the nutritional environment of said glucose makes NO difference?
In nature there is NO GLUCOSE molecule on its own as such, but it is very abundant and always part of a ledger whole food, do you not see a problem with your concept of isolating chemicals from their nutritional construct?

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by butcherguy

 

I have one sincere question for you.
Do you really think that the nutritional environment of said glucose makes NO difference?
In nature there is NO GLUCOSE molecule on its own as such, but it is very abundant and always part of a ledger whole food, do you not see a problem with your concept of isolating chemicals from their nutritional construct?

edit on 7-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

In nature, plants create glucose through a process called photosythesis.

In plants and some prokaryotes, glucose is a product of photosynthesis.

Source

Glucose exists in nature. It's also known as 'grape sugar'.

Fact is that the cells in our bodies use glucose as a fuel. Glucose is THE sugar that is able to pass through our cell walls.

I have one sincere question for you. Do you really think that the nutritional environment of said glucose makes NO difference?

reply to post by BBalazs
I've never said that it makes no difference. Whole foods are important.

I also believe that calling foods such as simple sugars, poisons, is disingenuous. Overindulgence is the biggest problem. That doesn't make a food a poison, any more than overindulgence of water makes it a poison.

Hi sugar no-fans !

One answer is true, before this message: Stevia IS the GOOD stuff !

Stevia is what we use, AND we switched to 99% ORGANIC / BIO food !
There are too many crazy products, out there, and too little info on the labels.
There is also too much "Roundup ready" CRAP ! !

And, to answer the other message: maple syrop is expensive because
it NEEDs a LOT of energy to GET and MAKE the syrop.

From the natural sap to good syrop, the ratio is +-10/1, TEN to ONE ! ! !
That means we have to heat/boil the sap, and EVAPORATE 90% of its water,
to make the good syrop !! For taffy it is a WOR$T ratio, that I don't know.

Blue skies.

reply to post by butcherguy


I guess its a difference what overindulgence means.
For me anything above whole foods is overindulgence, that should be eaten rarely.
As we can derive all glucose from whole foods.
And whole foods also contain other important nutrients, unpresent in modern foods.
We agree more then we disagree.

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by butcherguy

 

I guess its a difference what overindulgence means.
For me anything above whole foods is overindulgence, that should be eaten rarely.
As we can derive all glucose from whole foods.
And whole foods also contain other important nutrients, unpresent in modern foods.
We agree more then we disagree.

I eat a well balanced diet, meaning meats, fats and sweets in moderation; plus whole grains and vegetables.

I drink coffee..... and I put sucrose in it.

I have no diabetes, my cholesterol is good, blood pressure is great and am not overweight. To me overindulgence means taking in more calories than I burn, or concentrating the majority of my caloric intake in one group of foods.

I gots ta live a little.

Well, that's pretty obvious.

STIVIA iis well more sweet than sugar, cheaper to import and has no know bad effects.

reply to post by butcherguy


Hey, it was never personal.
I also drink coffee with raw milk.

But anyway this article is about the dangerous of aspartame,
Amazing how every study (and there are many peer reviewed studies) not funded by food companies proved irreversible and extreme brain damage to monkeys.
These things should not be be part of the food supply. Full stop.

reply to post by BBalazs
Better watch that raw milk, it'll kill you!



Raw Milk... ARRRGH!

Just kidding, I grew up drinking raw milk.

reply to post by butcherguy


i don't think so.we have been drinking if for 5o.ooo years or more.

“There are several epidemiological studies showing increased risk of metabolic syndrome in coincidence with the consumption of diet sodas” — a rich source of sweeteners. “But how they should be interpreted is not really clear right now. Because they’re correlational studies, they don’t tell us what caused what.”

There's the kicker. We find that fat people drink diet sodas and diabetic people drink diet sodas so we automatically assume the diet soda is the culprit. Nobody ever stops to think that maybe fat people and diabetics drink diet sodas because they're fat and diabetic.

Correlation doesn't determine causation.

Well, sugar is is bad but come on guys; moderation is the key. Easier said than done though i know. But still, it's better than aspartame and other alternatives. I would rather indulge in sugar on a regular basis than consume poison (cough aspartame cough). As someone already mentioned, use Stevia sweetener! It's all natural and tastes great!

On a related note:
The Big Fat Fiasco
This talks of much of the faulty science behind the research that essentially points to fat as the cause of heart disease over sugar. Very convincing when you consider that we ate next to no sugar before agriculture in the paleolithic period. Fat seems to make so much more sense as a main energy source, and sugar is proving to be increasingly dangerous for the cardiovascular system as a whole. Just another way for TPTB to suppress the masses really