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.

Amaya wrote: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.

Who are you talking to O Inflammatory One.

A certain idiot who is unaware of the link between certain carbs and heart disease.

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.

Amaya wrote:A certain idiot who is unaware of the link between certain carbs and heart disease.

As well as most of the other items on that list.

Palindrome wrote:

Amaya wrote:A certain idiot who is unaware of the link between certain carbs and heart disease.

As well as most of the other items on that list.

I just targeted heart disease since it was top on his list and he's all like "excessive bad carbs aren't bad."

Refined carbs/simple sugars/w.e/etc aren't bad from time to time and it's good to intake some carbs in moderation.

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.

I love how you have no idea how bad refined carbs are for you, it's really quite funny.

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 think you should actually read the entire thread

Unlike you, I have.

My first post in this thread was responding to the OP. I have stayed on topic this entire time.

Amaya wrote:Obviously you haven't read any of this or done any research.

Unlike you, I have.

Chemistry and biochemistry are my fields of study, in fact.

Amaya wrote:You're either posting because you're arguing over something that is not being discussed

Or you're discussing it and showing your immense dearth of knowledge.

Really? Because you're arguing with me over nothing.

I never said eating good carbs is bad. Somehow in your silly little rage you've fixated upon this and ignored everything else.

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.

Really?

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.

Amaya wrote:Are you completely unaware that you don't need to eat carbs to survive

Yeah, you're not actually reading jack gak in this thread.

Melissia wrote:

Amaya wrote:Are you completely unaware that you don't need to eat carbs to survive

Yeah, you're not actually reading jack gak in this thread.

It's okay, you can't be good at everything. Keep eating your pasta.

Making strawman arguments just proves that you're a troll, Amaya.

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.

You completely missed this post somehow, didn't you?

I read it, but it reeks of ignorance, because it proves that you still live in denial of the fact that without glucose you would die.

Why don't you both go outside for a bit?

I will say for an alleged biochemist Melissia really seems to have a poor grasp on the whole "glucose" issue.

No because your body can process other nutrients into the necessary sugars.

You can live on nothing but meat for a period of time. It is far from healthy, but it is certainly doable.

The only time you would literally be without glucose is if you're starving and at that point you'll die anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Why don't you both go outside for a bit?

I will say for an alleged biochemist Melissia really seems to have a poor grasp on the whole "glucose" issue.

College gym is closed for Good Friday - Easter weekend.

Is not pleased.

Amaya wrote:No because your body can process other nutrients into the necessary sugars.

... which proves my point that without it you would die.

Just because there is more than one source of sugar does not mean that you could survive wholely without it.

Melissia wrote:

Amaya wrote:No because your body can process other nutrients into the necessary sugars.

... which proves my point that without it you would die.

And if you're not taking in any nutrients you're starving and will die anyway...

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? You're not an idiot, this is pretty simple stuff.

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.

So high fructose corn syrup is a required nutrient?

Oh, so facts don't matter anymore, eh?

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:The best diet is meat, fruits, and vegetables.

All of which the body processes in to sugars for energy.

And yet you still claim that one can survive without sugars.

Okay, you're just trolling at this point and ignoring at least half of what I post.

I guess my initial impression of you being a reasonably intelligent person (albeit excessively bigoted against Christianity) was woefully incorrect.

Have a good day.

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.

The ignore button is your friend amaya. It's a pretty brilliant feature of Dakka.

GG

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.

Did I get that right?