Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yep. No sugar=no life.

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.

Vulcan wrote:Yep. No sugar=no life.

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.

everything is bad for you, everything will give you cancer

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.

Very true.

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.

Vulcan wrote:OMG SUGAR BAD!

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.

sebster wrote:

Vulcan wrote:OMG SUGAR BAD!

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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7403942n

GG

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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

That's really irrelevant Frazzled as eating excess sugars is probably the number one health concern in America.

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.

Sources:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/127/5/874S.full
http://www.vitalhealthzone.com/nutrition/diets/recommended_calorie_intake.php

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).

Then point out another significant factor that causes obesity.

Lack of exercise, lack of sleep and genetics are also large influences in the cause of obesity.

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.

Amaya wrote:Okay, you have to be trolling now.

No, I'm not.

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.

Amaya wrote:

Vulcan wrote:Yep. No sugar=no life.

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).

Not Sugar!


....


.... *Continues to drink his opened Mountain Dew*



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.

sebster wrote:

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...

generalgrog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Amaya wrote:Saying you have to eat carbs/sugars or you'll die is

True.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-fitness/heart/articles/2010/04/12/eating-the-wrong-kind-of-carbohydrates-increases-heart-disease-risk
http://www.mindbodyhealth.com/carbohydrates1.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090625133215.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/12/glycemic.diet.heart/index.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbs-against-cardio

Keep wallowing in ignorance.