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.

Wow. You don't say. These people make Paris Hilton look like a Genius.

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...

Okay, sure, but the thread was specifically about excessive sugar consumption. No one disputed how the body produces glucose.

The original post was saying sugar is bad for you, except... it is not bad for you, it's utterly vital. Thus why I posted what I posted.

An EXCESS of it is bad for you. Sugar isn't a "toxin" any more than water is. Journalists really don't know waht the feth they're talking about.

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.

So it really is about the way sugar is consumed.

I can see how you read it that way, but I still see it as a sensationalist journalism more than anything...

Well, they definitely sensationalized it a bit, but that's just what happens in advertising-driven news. They still qualified the statements appropriately, IMO.

It's scientifically proven that the better something tastes/the more you enjoy something the worse it is for you.

Sugar/fizzy pop/Xbox/ forge-world(carcinogenic)/green/ drinking etc etc etc

nom

nomsheep wrote:It's scientifically proven that the better something tastes/the more you enjoy something the worse it is for you.

No.

In each of those cases barring the forge-world example there is plenty of studies proving that they are bad for you.

Nom

nomsheep wrote:In each of those cases barring the forge-world example there is plenty of studies proving that they are bad for you.

Nom

No there isn't.

There's evidence that they are bad in excess.

But, if you paid attention, you'd realize something important here:

In excess, everything is bad for you.

Learn2humour the first post was meant as a joke.

however It requires much less of those things to be bad for you than say sleeping.

Melissia wrote:
You're an Idiot.

K got ya.

Nom

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.

GG

It was apparent from the beginning Melissia had no idea what the thread was about and was in here on her own little nonsensical agenda.

I think everyone else knows what's going on.

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.