look... I know people have been saying High fructose corn syrup is bad for you for years, but it appears that it is really, really, really.. bad for you...and so is sugar.
Watched 60 minutes tonight...scary story on sugar and high fructose corn syrup. I had allready cut out sodas from mine and my kids diet. Gonna have to check all labels for HFCS.
One scientist is saying that it should be treated like tobacco and alcohol in terms of it's health effects.
generalgrog wrote:look... I know people have been saying High fructose corn syrup is bad for you for years, but it appears that it is really, really, really.. bad for you...and so is sugar.
Watched 60 minutes tonight...
I stopped reading there :p
But yeah, in all honesty, it seems like you can 'manage' IF you consume particularly sugary drinks or foods in moderation and treat them like 'desserts'(which, and correct me if I'm wrong, is what soft drinks originally were).
EDIT: Although sugar(rather, 'sugar-type substances') seem to exist in tons of foods, not just sweets and soft drinks.
Amaya wrote:I really hope the OP is being sarcastic...because if you just now realized this...smh
I'm being somewhat sarcastic...but truly hadn't realized HOW bad it is for you.
GG
Fructose in and of itself is not bad, it is merely an isomer of glucose (i.e. same formula, different molecular structure), it is more soluable than water and has (IIRC) higher energy per unit than glucose, having too much fructose is no different to having too much glucose, it is stored as fat until the body needs to use it.
The problem is not fructose itself, but people who don't regulate their intake of it.
(Where's Melissia when you need her, she probably knows more about this than I do).
Eh, it's not simply the fact that people are eating high sugar diets (even though that it is a big part), but a big part of the problem is that eating 3 heavy meals a day is bad for the metabolism and many people only eat once or twice a day with intermittent sodas and high carb (primarily sugars) snacks.
Just finished watching that video of DR. Lustig. He did state that for high level athletes, fructose intake makes sense..however he is claiming that fructose in general is a poison. He calls it "ethanol without the buzz" and showed where ethanol and fructose causes many of the same problems.
He is basically saying that the entire food industry should do away with fructose, because of the effects it is having on our society in regards to obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardio vascular disease. He also pointed out why the FDA and our government probably will not do anything about it because there is so much money to be made from selling our food overseas.
Just did a bit of research High fructose corn syrup as barely more fructose than sucrose.
Sucrose is 50-50 fructose and glucose
HFCS is 55-45 fructose and glucose (respecitviley) a barely signficant difference at best
Amaya wrote:Eh, it's not simply the fact that people are eating high sugar diets (even though that it is a big part), but a big part of the problem is that eating 3 heavy meals a day is bad for the metabolism and many people only eat once or twice a day with intermittent sodas and high carb (primarily sugars) snacks.
Well, theoretically, the metabolism is best maintained (considering nothing else) by not eating "meals" per se, but sort of "grazing" every hour or two. Of course, that's not really going to fit into most lifestyles. Hell, even eating more than 3 times a day is often difficult.
Well, theoretically, the metabolism is best maintained (considering nothing else) by not eating "meals" per se, but sort of "grazing" every hour or two. Of course, that's not really going to fit into most lifestyles. Hell, even eating more than 3 times a day is often difficult.
Yeah I read this in a fitness magazine and tried it, had great results, ive dropped about 15lbs inside six weeks and im back up to 25 chin ups and a 7 minute mile. I kinda yoyo dieted my whole career thanks to the fact that when you return from somewhere like Iraq and your existing on MRE's, gak food and NO BEER for months, when you return home and get 10 weeks leave, you spend 8 weeks of it drunk and full of Ben and Jerrys.
Anyway, I started knocking back a protein shake for breakfast, taking a large protein bar to work and biting off a large chunk at 2 hour intervals throughout the day and then eating 3 small (3-400 calorie) meals during the evening and really noticed great results both in the mirror and in the gym.
I don't think its that hard to do, its just boring as feth. I have managed to stick to this regimen by adhering to it rigorously Monday-Friday and then getting leathered on Saturdays.
As far as the thread goes, its pretty obvious, if you eat gak you feel gak, and if you eat healthy you feel great. Sugar might lift your spirits in the short term, but in the long term its better to drink some Perrier water and then get your fat ass on the stairmaster for an hour.
generalgrog wrote:look... I know people have been saying High fructose corn syrup is bad for you for years, but it appears that it is really, really, really.. bad for you...and so is sugar.
Watched 60 minutes tonight...scary story on sugar and high fructose corn syrup. I had allready cut out sodas from mine and my kids diet. Gonna have to check all labels for HFCS.
One scientist is saying that it should be treated like tobacco and alcohol in terms of it's health effects.
(edit..the above is not the actual 60 minutes story just an additional online exclusive.)
youtube video of Dr. Robert Lustig.
GG
That "scientist" should be killed by a pack of wiener dogs, his skinny corpse then roasted by small children all dancing and singing "Kill the Pig! Spill its Blood! Kill the Pig! Spill its Blood!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:Eh, it's not simply the fact that people are eating high sugar diets (even though that it is a big part), but a big part of the problem is that eating 3 heavy meals a day is bad for the metabolism and many people only eat once or twice a day with intermittent sodas and high carb (primarily sugars) snacks.
Don't blame the sugar, blame the walking moo cows.
It is considerably harder to get fat just eating meat/poultry, fruits, and vegetables than it is when you're eating a high carb (primarily sugars) diet.
Amaya wrote:It is considerably harder to get fat just eating meat/poultry, fruits, and vegetables than it is when you're eating a high carb (primarily sugars) diet.
Yeah I reckon It would be almost impossible. Poultry and meat fills you up so much, and fresh veg has feth all calories in it. You might be able to do it on fruit, but only armed with a juicer. Apples and Oranges have plenty of sugar in, I reckon I could drink 30 oranges, but eating them would be an impossibility.
Amaya wrote:It is considerably harder to get fat just eating meat/poultry, fruits, and vegetables than it is when you're eating a high carb (primarily sugars) diet.
Yeah I reckon It would be almost impossible. Poultry and meat fills you up so much, and fresh veg has feth all calories in it. You might be able to do it on fruit, but only armed with a juicer. Apples and Oranges have plenty of sugar in, I reckon I could drink 30 oranges, but eating them would be an impossibility.
When I was eating pretty much only chicken, broccoli, eggs, and a piece of fruit (apple usually) I felt stuffed on 2000 calories a day. Very easy to lose weight like that.
Check out the book 'Sugar Blues' by William Dufty, good little read outdated a bit, but the basic theme is still there. Did you know the sugar industry is bigger then the oil industry?
Krellnus wrote:Just did a bit of research High fructose corn syrup as barely more fructose than sucrose.
Sucrose is 50-50 fructose and glucose
HFCS is 55-45 fructose and glucose (respecitviley) a barely signficant difference at best
This, if nothing else, has ensured I will never be a military man.
mattyrm wrote:
Anyway, I started knocking back a protein shake for breakfast, taking a large protein bar to work and biting off a large chunk at 2 hour intervals throughout the day and then eating 3 small (3-400 calorie) meals during the evening and really noticed great results both in the mirror and in the gym.
Yeah, my eating schedule is basically a small breakfast, a moderately sized lunch, and 4 small meals afterwards, the last being right before I go to the gym at midnight (my schedule is really weird).
mattyrm wrote:
I don't think its that hard to do, its just boring as feth. I have managed to stick to this regimen by adhering to it rigorously Monday-Friday and then getting leathered on Saturdays.
That's what I do as well. I always make sure to get good and smashed at least once a week. I used to indulge in certain foods too, but if you're on this type of diet long enough (I've been on it for ~4 years) you lose your taste for a lot the worse foods. I can't stomach things like french fries, steak, beef hamburgers, beef hot dogs, Alfredo sauce (I still eat it, because its delicious, but I always regret it), White Castle, or Taco Bell anymore.
Amaya wrote:It is considerably harder to get fat just eating meat/poultry, fruits, and vegetables than it is when you're eating a high carb (primarily sugars) diet.
Carb intensive foods aren't a huge problem, carb intensive drinks on the other hand...you don't notice you put down 1000 calories of Pepsi the way you notice putting down 1000 calories of bread.
Hell, 14 years ago, when I was the fat kid, I made a conscious choice to switch to diet soda (back when it tasted like ass) and lost 30 pounds in 2 months without any additional exercise.
Amaya wrote:It is considerably harder to get fat just eating meat/poultry, fruits, and vegetables than it is when you're eating a high carb (primarily sugars) diet.
Carb intensive foods aren't a huge problem, carb intensive drinks on the other hand...you don't notice you put down 1000 calories of Pepsi the way you notice putting down 1000 calories of bread.
Hell, 14 years ago, when I was the fat kid, I made a conscious choice to switch to diet soda (back when it tasted like ass) and lost 30 pounds in 2 months without any additional exercise.
High carb foods are a significant problem, but at least whole wheat ones have a semblance of nutritional value. The average person who simply wants to be 'healthy' can eat a fair amount of carbs as can athletes in endurance sports. Unless you're doing intensive/extensive cardio you'll never be lean (unless already naturally so) unless you cut carbs for a sustained period of time. If you're an endomorph eating a lot of carbs will keep you heavy.
I'm not going to advocate eating no breads as that's just not feasible for the average person, but carb centric meals (pasta, cereal for breakfast, pizza) are not good choices.
Amaya wrote:
I'm not going to advocate eating no breads as that's just not feasible for the average person, but carb centric meals (pasta, cereal for breakfast, pizza) are not good choices.
That's a myth, for the most part.
The short of it is that protein and lipids will be used by your body as they are necessary, with excess converted to, effectively, raw calories of the sort produced by carbs.
The biggest problem people face in terms of diet is appropriately gauging consumption to their level of activity. Eating 2000 calories while sitting in front of a computer for 8 hours a day, and not exercising, is going to make you fat regardless of the source of those calories.
It's not. Grains are not a natural part of the human diet unless there have been significant evolutionary changes in humans since the dawn of bread (roughly 10,000 years ago). It's a cheap food that'll keep you ticking, but it's an inferior choice to meats, vegetables, and fruits. A fair amount of individuals of European ancestry can't process glutens and cutting them out of their diet resolves intestinal problems (particularly gas).
Everything you can get from grains you can get elsewhere, with all of the negative bits avoided.
Amaya wrote:It's not. Grains are not a natural part of the human diet unless there have been significant evolutionary changes in humans since the dawn of bread (roughly 10,000 years ago). It's a cheap food that'll keep you ticking, but it's an inferior choice to meats, vegetables, and fruits. A fair amount of individuals of European ancestry can't process glutens and cutting them out of their diet resolves intestinal problems (particularly gas).
Everything you can get from grains you can get elsewhere, with all of the negative bits avoided.
There aren't any negative bits (carbs exist in fruit vegetables, nuts, and most other foods as well), and you can get pretty much any primary nutritional benefit from sources that aren't the culturally assumed primary source.
The allergy argument is easily dealt with by considering nuts, fish, eggs, and a host of other foods.
Billions of people eat sugar every day.
It's not "bad for you". Something that lowers your life expectancy from 86 to 84 isn't really bad news.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
The biggest problem people face in terms of diet is appropriately gauging consumption to their level of activity. Eating 2000 calories while sitting in front of a computer for 8 hours a day, and not exercising, is going to make you fat regardless of the source of those calories.
Not really. It's entirely down to your weight and muscle/metabolism. We're all animals and we're all different.
I'm six foot tall and pretty big, when I want to lose weight I eat 2,000 (and do moderate exersise) and the weight piles off. I can eat 2,500 calories a day and do little exersise without gaining weight.
Amaya wrote:It's not. Grains are not a natural part of the human diet unless there have been significant evolutionary changes in humans since the dawn of bread (roughly 10,000 years ago). It's a cheap food that'll keep you ticking, but it's an inferior choice to meats, vegetables, and fruits. A fair amount of individuals of European ancestry can't process glutens and cutting them out of their diet resolves intestinal problems (particularly gas).
Everything you can get from grains you can get elsewhere, with all of the negative bits avoided.
There aren't any negative bits (carbs exist in fruit vegetables, nuts, and most other foods as well), and you can get pretty much any primary nutritional benefit from sources that aren't the culturally assumed primary source.
The allergy argument is easily dealt with by considering nuts, fish, eggs, and a host of other foods.
40% of people are allergic to eggs? I'm not talking about carbs, I'm talking about grains. You should probably actually research the negative side effects of grains and the contents before saying there are no negative bits to them.
Lectins, glutens, and phyates are all found in grains and are not good for you. Fiber and vitamins in grains can be found elsewhere in other foods that do not have crap in them.
Amaya wrote:
Lectins, glutens, and phyates are all found in grains and are not good for you. Fiber and vitamins in grains can be found elsewhere in other foods that do not have crap in them.
Yeesh. Sugar is a carb. Big deal. Too much can kill you. No surprise there. So can drinking too much water. Too much oxygen can be lethal. In short, TOO MUCH OF ANY ONE THING IS BAD, duh!
You realize that sugar is the primary source of energy for our bodies, right?
Without sugar you would not die slowly.
You would die instantly, or very close to it, as your body finds itself unable to produce energy for things such as, say, heartbeats and lung expansions.
Melissia wrote:You realize that sugar is the primary source of energy for our bodies, right?
Without sugar you would not die slowly.
You would die instantly, or very close to it, as your body finds itself unable to produce energy for things such as, say, heartbeats and lung expansions.
I'll grant you that your body can break down a great many things into sugar. But I'll disagree that sugar=bad 100%. An EXCESS of sugar is bad.
Just like an excess of... well, pretty much every trace mineral your body needs. Too much Iron produces free radicals, which can be lethal. Iodine is needed for the thyroid, too much again is lethal. Selenium, Vandalium, and many other elements are necessary for life... and fatal in excess.
The secret is, as always, Balance. None does not equal good.
I'll grant you that your body can break down a great many things into sugar. But I'll disagree that sugar=bad 100%. An EXCESS of sugar is bad.
Just like an excess of... well, pretty much every trace mineral your body needs. Too much Iron produces free radicals, which can be lethal. Iodine is needed for the thyroid, too much again is lethal. Selenium, Vandalium, and many other elements are necessary for life... and fatal in excess.
The secret is, as always, Balance. None does not equal good.
I don't think Melissia understands the bold.
And I was ragging on sugar, I was talking about grains. Get your carbs from fruits.
Sugar isn't bad for you. Too much sugar is bad for you. Too much of anything is bad for you. Putting 14 splendas in your coffee isn't any better for you than 14 sugars. In fact, it's probably worse.
rubiksnoob wrote:Sugar isn't bad for you. Too much sugar is bad for you. Too much of anything is bad for you. Putting 14 splendas in your coffee isn't any better for you than 14 sugars. In fact, it's probably worse.
Yeesh. Sugar is a carb. Big deal. Too much can kill you. No surprise there. So can drinking too much water. Too much oxygen can be lethal. In short, TOO MUCH OF ANY ONE THING IS BAD, duh!
We need a scientist to tell us this?
If that was the sum total of what he said, then sure. But then, if that was the sum total of all we could take out of what he said, I'd wonder why anyone would bother being a scientist at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiksnoob wrote:Sugar isn't bad for you. Too much sugar is bad for you. Too much of anything is bad for you.
And the point is that most people would be quite shocked at how much their sugar intake is past the 'too much' stage.
That point doesn't really work on the internet, of course, where people instinctively declare every piece of information something they already knew, that only idiots wouldn't be aware of.
Yeesh. Sugar is a carb. Big deal. Too much can kill you. No surprise there. So can drinking too much water. Too much oxygen can be lethal. In short, TOO MUCH OF ANY ONE THING IS BAD, duh!
We need a scientist to tell us this?
If that was the sum total of what he said, then sure. But then, if that was the sum total of all we could take out of what he said, I'd wonder why anyone would bother being a scientist at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiksnoob wrote:Sugar isn't bad for you. Too much sugar is bad for you. Too much of anything is bad for you.
And the point is that most people would be quite shocked at how much their sugar intake is past the 'too much' stage.
That point doesn't really work on the internet, of course, where people instinctively declare every piece of information something they already knew, that only idiots wouldn't be aware of.
This is why I like you sebby!!
In the youtube video the main problem the guy pointed out was the processed sugars like HFCS and refined white sugar. He said sugar from fruits(natural fructose) were fine, and he pointed to the beneficial fiber that is garnered along with eating a fruit.
the 60 minutes spot showed a series of tests where study subjects had a prescribed regimen of food and the people that used HFCS over other sugars showed higher ill effects.
GG
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here is the 60 minutes spot. It's worth the 14 minutes.
Amaya wrote:Too much sugar is significantly worse for you than too much of other things and Americans are consuming way too much sugar.
It's fine if you work out a lot, especially if you're doing a lot of cardio.
Actually way down the list of things that are significantly worse. I have a nice pic on the wall of chem chains, all of which will kill you at much lower levels.
Amaya wrote:Too much sugar is significantly worse for you than too much of other things and Americans are consuming way too much sugar.
It's fine if you work out a lot, especially if you're doing a lot of cardio.
Actually way down the list of things that are significantly worse. I have a nice pic on the wall of chem chains, all of which will kill you at much lower levels.
Amaya wrote:That's really irrelevant Frazzled as eating excess sugars is probably the number one health concern in America.
Really? I woulda thought that obesity would be the number one health concern in America (like it is here) and don't say that's what you mean by eating excess sugars because that isn't the only factor that results in obesity (though I don't deny it plays a big part).
If you can find me a single obese person that isn't consuming an excessive amount of sugars (or other carbs) I will be completely and utterly amazed.
The three common factors I have noted in overweight people are slow metabolism due to inconsistent meal times, excessive consumption of sodas and other sweets, and insufficient sleep. Just one of those can lead to weight gain, all of three of them are recipe for disaster.
I seriously doubt that there is a single obese person out there eating less than 100 carbs a day and if there is, they're doing so to lose weight and are probably losing massive amounts of weight by doing so.
Amaya wrote:If you can find me a single obese person that isn't consuming an excessive amount of sugars (or other carbs) I will be completely and utterly amazed.
The three common factors I have noted in overweight people are slow metabolism due to inconsistent meal times, excessive consumption of sodas and other sweets, and insufficient sleep. Just one of those can lead to weight gain, all of three of them are recipe for disaster.
I seriously doubt that there is a single obese person out there eating less than 100 carbs a day and if there is, they're doing so to lose weight and are probably losing massive amounts of weight by doing so.
Excess sugar and carbohydrates are not a problem if you perform enough exercise, athletes being the prime example of this, some with an energy intake of over 24 000kJ of energy, about 40% of which comes from carbohydrates, meaning about 9600kJ comes just from carbohydrates, which is about 3.7 times the RDI of an adult male between 19-50 years of age (2550). According to you, all athletes should be obese because of their excess sugar intake.
Are you reading anything going in this thread or just posting randomly?
Carbs are not a problem if you're doing a ton of exercise, preferably something along the lines of swimming, HIIT, or a sport that requires a lot of running/sprinting (basketball, soccer, etc).
If you don't do those and you eat a lot of bad carbs (simple sugars), like obese people do, you're going to balloon.
It is impossible to become overweight eating a clean low carb diet unless you literally abuse yourself and force down massive amounts of fatty red meat like sausage and bacon. Even then, I doubt anyone is overweight Hell, even in that situation I don't know if anyone manages to get fat just eating like that unless they're washing it down with beer or good ole sugary iced tea.
Are you reading anything going in this thread or just posting randomly?
Obviously I am reading this thread or I would not be answering your posts after quoting you now would I? No need for baseless accusations.
Carbs are not a problem if you're doing a ton of exercise, preferably something along the lines of swimming, HIIT, or a sport that requires a lot of running/sprinting (basketball, soccer, etc).
Which is what I said :
Krellnus wrote:Excess sugar and carbohydrates are not a problem if you perform enough exercise
If you don't do those and you eat a lot of bad carbs (simple sugars), like obese people do, you're going to balloon.
So before you said carbs are not a problem, but now you are saying they are? Could you clarify your statement please?
It is impossible to become overweight eating a clean low carb diet unless you literally abuse yourself and force down massive amounts of fatty red meat like sausage and bacon. Even then, I doubt anyone is overweight Hell, even in that situation I don't know if anyone manages to get fat just eating like that unless they're washing it down with beer or good ole sugary iced tea.
Again I am not quite sure what you mean by this statement, You have been asserting that excess sugar is the only factor in obesity whereas I have denied that assertion (whilst acknowleding that it does, in fact play a large part).
Don't care. Humans have an expiration date for a reason. There's nothing worse than hearing somebody whine about how it's so unfair that they;'re dying when their 80 because they did all this crap that their health guru implied would make them live forever. My grandpa lived to be 95 and he was miserable. No thanks.
warpcrafter wrote:Don't care. Humans have an expiration date for a reason. There's nothing worse than hearing somebody whine about how it's so unfair that they;'re dying when their 80 because they did all this crap that their health guru implied would make them live forever. My grandpa lived to be 95 and he was miserable. No thanks.
Agreed, I would rather live to be about 60-65 and be happy, than 90+ and miserable.
In breaking down carbohydrates for energy, want to know what you get?
Sugars.
Fats can be broken down in to Acetyl Coenzyme A to continue the Krebs Cycle, but by themselves they cannot maximize the body's ability to gain energy, thus a fat only diet has its own problems (nevermind the related health issues) in terms of energy.
Proteins can be broken down, as well... but again, they are broken down in to sugars (or when in excess, stored as fats for energy).
Course, we could try to survive off of ethanol but again, that's a laughable concept, as metabolizing it produces less energy than the Acetyl-CoA from fats.
Glycolysis is the body's primary and most efficient way of gaining energy, and is more energy efficient than breaking down fat in to Acetyl-CoA. We humans survive off of sugar, regardless of the form said sugar is in. This is why diabetes is such a debilitating and dangerous condition. We cannot survive without sugar.
I'll grant you that your body can break down a great many things into sugar. But I'll disagree that sugar=bad 100%. An EXCESS of sugar is bad.
Just like an excess of... well, pretty much every trace mineral your body needs. Too much Iron produces free radicals, which can be lethal. Iodine is needed for the thyroid, too much again is lethal. Selenium, Vandalium, and many other elements are necessary for life... and fatal in excess.
The secret is, as always, Balance. None does not equal good.
I don't think Melissia understands the bold.
And I was ragging on sugar, I was talking about grains. Get your carbs from fruits.
We already covered that Melissia.
Saying you have to eat carbs/sugars or you'll die is silly. The primary difference between two otherwise identical individuals assuming a large difference in carbohydrate intake is that the one taking in more carbs will have superior endurance.
The best source for the necessary sugars are good carbs, but the human body can also break down other nutrients to serve as sugars. I don't know how feasible it is (or if its even possible as there are carbs in virtually everything) to go on a no carb diet for a long time, but you can easily sustain yourself on under 100g of carbs a day or even less which is 1/3rd the recommended amount (according to the idiotic FDA).
Anything in excess is bad. Even Wargaming. When you get to the point of Making Jokes about Tactical Poncho Armor giving you a 2+ save from Raindrops (Did this at work today, but I talk about 40k so much that everyone I work with at least got the basic idea of what I was talking about.) You know you should cut down. You won't, but you should.
Krellnus wrote:Agreed, I would rather live to be about 60-65 and be happy, than 90+ and miserable.
You say this as though eating poorly improves one's happiness, as if there were no lifestyle consequences to obesity other than short lifespan.
I've always been a bit mystified by that argument. Sure, fattening foods are generally regarded as tasty, but if you eat fattening food less often you're probably going to get laid a lot more.
It seems like a pretty clear choice to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:I don't know how feasible it is (or if its even possible as there are carbs in virtually everything) to go on a no carb diet for a long time, but you can easily sustain yourself on under 100g of carbs a day or even less which is 1/3rd the recommended amount (according to the idiotic FDA).
You can do it, its just really, really inefficient both in terms of biology, and finances.
The no carb diets I've seen, like Atkins, aren't really "no carb" they're just primarily based on protein and fat consumption, with the elimination of carb centric foods like pasta, bread, tortillas, etc.
Personally, I could never do that. I love me my pasta and bread.
Krellnus wrote:Agreed, I would rather live to be about 60-65 and be happy, than 90+ and miserable.
This would only make sense if there was a guarantee that you'd die a quick, rather painless death around 65 and would thus avoid a guaranteed prolonged suffering at 90+. Which really doesn't happen that way, some people die quick deaths at 90+, some suffer for a long time around 65.
I'd rather increase my chances of getting a few more nice years than betting on an "easier" death earlier...
Amaya wrote:Too much sugar is significantly worse for you than too much of other things and Americans are consuming way too much sugar.
It's fine if you work out a lot, especially if you're doing a lot of cardio.
Actually way down the list of things that are significantly worse. I have a nice pic on the wall of chem chains, all of which will kill you at much lower levels.
Where can I get one?
GG
Several people have asked, but I stole it fair and square. Nibble on some polymethyl methacrylate my pretties!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:That's really irrelevant Frazzled as eating excess sugars is probably the number one health concern in America.
Only if you're an idiot. I think it ranks slightly behind such fun filled items as
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
*Heart disease: 599,413
*Cancer: 567,628
*Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
*Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
*Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
*Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
*Diabetes: 68,705
*Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
*Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
*Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909
Dude, seriously, I can't believe I took time out of my Hostess Cupcake eating time to read this garbage. That's so totally wrong. Sugar is great for you.
At least in Germany (but I think it wont be less in other 1st world nations) 66% of all deaths come from wrong eating behaviours. Not only too much sugar but also too much meat.
Seriously Amaya, you're going to try to use a website that advertises its "Miracle Products" as evidence? That's about as scientific as homeopathy.
As for the rest, you didn't actually bother to read them, did you?
First article: "the Wrong Kind of Carbohydrates". It speaks of avoiding white bread, because white bread is treated in a way to change the carbohydrates to unhealthy carbs, which itself is similar to how fat can be made unhealthier through treatments. Whole wheat is healthier than white bread; why is this news to you?
Third article:: "But doctors know that high glycemic foods rapidly increase blood sugar. Those who binge on these foods have a greater chance of sudden death from heart attack."
Fourth article: Same as the first article. Whole wheat is healthier than white bread; why is this news to you?
Fifth article: A meta-analysis, not an actual study. An article that tries to use the information from other peoples' researches to prove its point. Even then, it still blames "Processed carbohydrates". So basically the same as the first one. Whole wheat is healthier than white bread; why is this news to you?
The answer, of course, is because you never actually bothered to read your own links, and you really don't know much of anything about nutrition and health, certainly not on a chemical level.
Amaya wrote:I love how you have no idea how bad refined carbs are for you
This just in: Amaya is illiterate.
Melissia wrote:Whole wheat is healthier than white bread; why is this news to you?
Try actually reading my posts before responding, just as you should actually bother reading your own links before posting them.
Sugars feed glycolysis, which feeds the citric acid cycle, which feeds the electron transport chain. Carbohydrates and proteins are broken down in to sugars. Fats are broken down in to Acetyl-CoA, which feeds an incomplete version of the citric acid cycle and is less efficient than sugars. The human body has no other sources of energy.
You can live in denial of this all you want, but that just means you're in denial, not that you're right.
I think you should actually read the entire thread before posting your silliness. My post was a direct response to Frazzled. Obviously you haven't read any of this or done any research.
You're either posting because you're arguing over something that is not being discussed or because you don't understand that refined carbs lead to an increased risk of CHD and the rise in heart disease is directly tied to an increased consumption of sugary foods and other refined carbs.
Either way, you're making yourself look like an ass.
Amaya wrote:I never said eating good carbs is bad.
You showed your ignorance re: nutrition right about here:
Amaya wrote:
Melissia wrote:You realize that sugar is the primary source of energy for our bodies, right?
Without sugar you would not die slowly.
You would die instantly, or very close to it, as your body finds itself unable to produce energy for things such as, say, heartbeats and lung expansions.
Okay, you have to be trolling now.
You haven't exactly posted much else of value on the topic since then.
What I posted was true. Completely removing glucose from the body would kill you. But you have continued to argue otherwise.
Are you completely unaware that you don't need to eat carbs to survive because the body can process other nutrients to use as carbs?
You can easily survive on under 50g of carbs a day, I've done that for months at a time. I'm pretty sure at this point you're just trying to justify your diet yourself.
I'll grant you that your body can break down a great many things into sugar. But I'll disagree that sugar=bad 100%. An EXCESS of sugar is bad.
Just like an excess of... well, pretty much every trace mineral your body needs. Too much Iron produces free radicals, which can be lethal. Iodine is needed for the thyroid, too much again is lethal. Selenium, Vandalium, and many other elements are necessary for life... and fatal in excess.
The secret is, as always, Balance. None does not equal good.
I don't think Melissia understands the bold.
And I was ragging on sugar, I was talking about grains. Get your carbs from fruits.
You completely missed this post somehow, didn't you?
Just because there is more than one source of sugar does not mean that you could survive wholely without it like you have claimed. There's no logic in that statement.
As I said earlier, it's possible, it has been done and research has been done on it (of course you would probably discredit it as soon as you saw it), and of course it is not ideal. The best diet is meat, fruits, and vegetables. Whole grains are tolerable. Refined sugars and simple carbs are okay on occasion. Excessive amounts of those lead to severe medical problems.
Amaya wrote:Okay, you're just trolling at this point
On the contrary, what I posted ("And yet you still claim that one can survive without sugars.") is EXACTLY what you implied here:
Amaya wrote:
Melissia wrote:You realize that sugar is the primary source of energy for our bodies, right?
Without sugar you would not die slowly.
You would die instantly, or very close to it, as your body finds itself unable to produce energy for things such as, say, heartbeats and lung expansions.
Okay, you have to be trolling now.
I am not trolling, I am stating a simple biological fact. That you have argued so hard against it doesn't really change that.
I have the feeling that Melissia and Amaya are just part of a huge misunderstanding along the way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I see it Melissia is simply stating that without sugar for "fuel", humans are in trouble. Now, this sugar does not have to be consumed as pure sugar, it can be broken down from other sources, like protein or fat, with a certain decrease in efficiency as far as I grasp the concept. That is what Amaya is also saying, if I'm correct.
There seems to be no need to discussion about. However, Amaya seems to understand Melissia's posts as "You have to eat PURE sugar or you'll die", while Melissia seems to understand "You DON'T need sugar as a basic fuel for the human body" from Amaya's posts. So both keep arguing their point of view, even though there's no real contradiction between their basic claims listed above.
If I re-phrase Amaya and Luna's posts in my head to include phrases like "pip pip", "my good man", "my dear lady", and so forth, it turns into amusing and lighthearted banter. I wish they'd actually do that.
Witzkatz wrote:I have the feeling that Melissia and Amaya are just part of a huge misunderstanding along the way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I see it Melissia is simply stating that without sugar for "fuel", humans are in trouble. Now, this sugar does not have to be consumed as pure sugar, it can be broken down from other sources, like protein or fat, with a certain decrease in efficiency as far as I grasp the concept. That is what Amaya is also saying, if I'm correct.
This is what I was saying, yes. Whether it is broken down from carbs, from amino acids, from simle sugars, from proteins, or from other sources, it's irrelevant-- sugar is still necessary for us to survive.
In the end, sugar is our primary source of energy, and without it we would die. This doesn't mean we should all eat a bunch of cane sugar or anything, it just means that most people have a serious misconception about what sugar is. Same with carbs, fats, and proteins really...
Which isn't in any way incompatible with Amaya's point that most people (at least in Western countries which have a problem with obesity) consume more sugar than they should, and often don't realize how far beyond recommended intake they're going. And excessive consumption of sugar seems to be the main culprit for people being overweight (though obviously other factors contribute as well).
I've been out of the habit of exercise for longer than I'd like, and am in my mid-30s, but I'm still slender (slight paunch just starting to develop) in large part because I don't drink sugared sodar or eat a lot of sweets. I have a desk job, I don't exercise enough, I don't sleep enough, I drink beer, I eat chocolate, I love to eat, and I cook and eat substantial quantities of meat and bread and pasta, using butter and olive oil and such, all the time, but I'm still not fat apparently because I keep the sugar intake low.
Mannahnin wrote:Which doesn't detract from Amaya's point that most people (at least in Western countries which have a problem with obesity) consume more sugar than they should, and often don't realize how far beyond recommended intake they're going.
I've been out of the habit of exercise for longer than I'd like, and am in my mid-30s, but I'm still slender (slight paunch just starting to develop) in large part because I don't drink sugared sodar or eat a lot of sweets. I have a desk job, I don't exercise enough, I don't sleep enough, I drink beer, I love to eat, and I cook and eat substantial quantities of meat and bread and pasta, using butter and olive oil and such, all the time, but I'm still not fat apparently because I keep the sugar intake low.
Yes, but the problem of overeating doesn't mean that sugar (more accurately, (2R,3S,4R,5R)-2,3,4,5,6-Pentahydroxyhexanal, IE D-Glucose) isn't the primary source of energy.
It just means that people are seriously overeating and should be more careful what they eat. Generally speaking simple sugars should rarely be eaten as anything other than a source of immediate energy, such as at half time while playing a basketball game for example, and even then in moderation. Non-processed carbs (whole wheat) make a good basis for energy otherwise-- again in moderation. And fats/proteins are necessary for a good diet as well... in moderation.
ANYTHING taken in excess can and will kill you. Carbs, sugars, fats, proteins, fibers, water, oxygen...
GG may have implied that sugar is toxic, but the original store on 60 minutes didn't claim that.
This week on 60 Minutes, Dr. Sanjay Gupta reports on new research coming out of some of America's most respected institutions, which find that sugar-- the way it's being consumed by Americans today-- is a toxin. And it could be the driving force behind some of this country's leading killers, including heart disease.
We at Overtime couldn't believe our ears when we heard this report. We knew sugar was bad, but a "toxin"? We give our kids that stuff!
We weren't quite sure how to apply the new science in the 60 Minutes report to the challenges of everyday family life, so we sat down with Dr. Sanjay Gupta for some practical advice. Both a doctor and a father of three, Dr. Gupta offers his take on how a typical American family should think about the sugar in their diet.
Well, they definitely sensationalized it a bit, but that's just what happens in advertising-driven news. They still qualified the statements appropriately, IMO.
Looking at mannaheins post....it seems like what have here is a failure to communicate.
We appear to have a semantic problem. The "sugar" referred to in the thread title is referring to processed sugars like table sugar and high fructose corn syrup. NOT glucose.
The UCSF Scientist/endocrinologist (Dr. Lustig) specifically pointed to those processed sugars as the problem and these are the toxins. I think I also pointed this out in my earlier posts. Whoever is saying that some reporter came up with this idea obviously didn't watch Dr. Lustigs video on the subject, and is spouting ignorance.
And if people bothered to watch the two 60 minutes spots I linked, they would have seen that other studies have shown that HFCS is bad for you.
Dr. Lustig did say that for an elite athlete that is expending a lot of energy in atheltic activities, using those processed sugars makes sense in that context. That context rules out 99% of the rest of the population..... I think I also pointed this out in my earlier posts.
generalgrog wrote:Looking at mannaheins post....it seems like what have here is a failure to communicate.
I understood the thread just fine, but when I tried to make a point about how people don't really understand what "sugar" is, people proved that they don't really understand what "sugar" is, constantly referring to multiple, distinct things by the same nomenclature to the point where they confused themselves.
Also the guy said that said refined carbohydrates were toxic IN EXCESS. Like everything else in excess. Water in excess is toxic. Oxygen in excess is toxic. Blood in excess is toxic and dangerous to the body.
You have to understand this very important fact of life in order to really understand what was said by the scientists. It's not that the objects themselves were toxic, but rather that the way they are being eaten means that the average American is eating them in excess, which produces a toxic effect because ... it's in excess.
Melissia, you have said your piece in this thread, many, many times. At this point I am going to have to ask those of you that have been arguing back and forth exclusively with each other to step aside and leave the discussion to others, I don't believe there is much new to add.
No matter what you believe, it is not worth getting riled up about someone's stance on sugar on a toy-soldier forum.
