Sugar is toxic

[plarq]

DHMO is also poisonous in large dose.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I've cut out a lot of sugar over the past several years. Every step, I've felt better and better.

Soft drinks<water, tea, or coffee
Milk chocolate<dark chocolate
Ketchup<salsa

 

[Narz]

Since I stopped working my day-job a month ago I've been producing my sucrose syrup from dandelions. This sucrose is so healthy, I haven't even been eating any other food. Goddamn I'm healthy.

Sounds like a stupid way to get sweetness considering how unsweet dandelions are. Better just to juice dandelion greens with apple juice then you get all of the nutrients & can still sweeten to taste.

The only thing I found even possibly significant in those links is that protein makes up a whopping 0.4% of honey. For funsies I worked out that, using the numbers most favorable to honey, a single kidney bean has as much protein as 2½ tablespoons of honey.

So... maybe I'm missing something? Please, point me to the good stuff, something that specifies what honey's health giving properties actually are. 'Cause it's pretty much just sugar with a bean in it.

But it's not sugar, it doesn't have the same glycemic index of ratio of sugars. It has minerals (unlike sugar) & may have beneficial effects on allergies (hasn't been studied much though since there's alot more money in allegra).

http://health.howstuffworks.com/dis...rgy-treatments/local-honey-for-allergies2.htm

If you want to argue that "organic cane juice" is the same as sugar I won't argue but saying honey is the same is a bit of a stretch.

Also honey is sweeter than sugar so you need less of it in recipes.

But like I said, if anyone can point out anyone addicted to honey the way people are addicted to sugar suffering similar health consequences I'll be more receptive to the claim.

 

[Narz]

DHMO is also poisonous in large dose.

But most people aren't going to drink five gallons of water a day whereas many people eat tons of sugar every day without even thinking about it. Saying that too much x is toxic isn't a big deal if no one has the inclination, let alone compulsion to use too much x. Reminds me too much of the assertion "well, everything causes cancer so therefore I'm going to do y unhealthy activity".

I've cut out a lot of sugar over the past several years. Every step, I've felt better and better.

Soft drinks<water, tea, or coffee
Milk chocolate<dark chocolate
Ketchup<salsa

Congrats. Yeah, I prefer tomato sauce to ketchup. And most tomato sauce nowadays has sugar in it ack: who wants sweet tomato sauce) so I just buy a huge can (6+ lbs) of tomato paste at Costco and make my own.

I make my own chocolate too with cacao powder, cacao butter & honey.

Once you acclimate to a lower sugar diet I find that crap with added sugar tastes very unappealing & also leaves my mouth feeling yucky (though occasionally I will eat a very dark chocolate bar if I'm out & can't make my own chocolate).

 

[Disgustipated]

How do you make your own chocolate?

I hear good things about dark chocolate, but eating chocolate may be morally wrong based on how it is acquired in Africa.

 

[dirtyparrot]

The only thing I found even possibly significant in those links is that protein makes up a whopping 0.4% of honey. For funsies I worked out that, using the numbers most favorable to honey, a single kidney bean has as much protein as 2½ tablespoons of honey.

So... maybe I'm missing something? Please, point me to the good stuff, something that specifies what honey's health giving properties actually are. 'Cause it's pretty much just sugar with a bean in it.

Both honey and maple syrup are anti oxidants.

 

[Zelig]

Both honey and maple syrup are anti oxidants.

There isn't good evidence pointing to antioxidants being nearly as good for you as they're touted.

Even if they have antioxidants, you can't say they are antioxidants, they're primarily water/sucrose/glucose/fructose.

 

[Murky]

People put all kinds of disgusting stuff in and on their bodies. Sugar isn't the worst of them.

 

[El_Machinae]

Honey really is sugar. If it's sweeter and has a lower glycemic index (and especially insulin index) than table-sugar, then it seems to be a true winner.

re: antioxidants: They're good for you, but not because they're antioxidants. They're a bit like a proxy for healthiness, really. The proxy can be gimmicked to deceive, but it's a decent rule-of-thumb.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

How do you make your own chocolate?

I hear good things about dark chocolate, but eating chocolate may be morally wrong based on how it is acquired in Africa.

Using most stuff would be morally wrong based on how its acquired in Africa. But at least its cheap.

 

[LucyDuke]

But it's not sugar, it doesn't have the same glycemic index of ratio of sugars. It has minerals (unlike sugar) & may have beneficial effects on allergies (hasn't been studied much though since there's alot more money in allegra).

http://health.howstuffworks.com/dis...rgy-treatments/local-honey-for-allergies2.htm

If you want to argue that "organic cane juice" is the same as sugar I won't argue but saying honey is the same is a bit of a stretch.

Also honey is sweeter than sugar so you need less of it in recipes.

But like I said, if anyone can point out anyone addicted to honey the way people are addicted to sugar suffering similar health consequences I'll be more receptive to the claim.

No, I mean, I backed off "just as bad" immediately, I'd liked the sound of it but you're right, it's not "just as bad". I'm not saying it's the same. I'm saying that it's not significantly better than sugar. It is absolutely better than sugar, it has some minerals and a lower glycemic index. But definitely not "not even close to as bad" and it's not really food either.

That same 2½ tablespoons, the kidney bean of protein, an amount of sugar that probably is more than your diet should make room for every day, has 3mg calcium, or one and a half kidney beans. One and a third kidney beans worth of iron. Half a kidney bean of magnesium and phosphorous. One kidney bean of potassium. Four kidney beans of zinc. The honey has more sodium than the bean, but nobody's short on that. One quarter of a kidney bean of fiber.

So, sorry, I guess it's sugar with four beans in it if you're concerned about your zinc intake.

Sources vary on the glycemic index. Supermarket honey is not substantially better than sugar (less than 15% lower, if at all). Raw honey has a noticeably better score (almost 50% lower) according to some sources.

Sources vary on sweetness, too. Most generous difference I've found is honey being 25% sweeter than table sugar.

There have been no peer-reviewed scientific studies that have conclusively proven whether honey actually reduces allergies. Almost all evidence regarding the immunizing effects of eating honey is anecdotal.

This isn't interesting.

"Addicted to honey / addicted to

sugar" is a meaningless comparison, the sugar addicts would be perfectly happy with honey and if someone ate as much honey as the sugar addicts there's nothing that would distinguish them. It's just circumstance that the cheapest sugars are most common. You're not immune to the harms of sugar because you eat honey instead. You're only better off because you pay more attention to your food generally.

On any practical scale honey is around 80% sugar and 20% water. The sugars might be a bit better, but they're still sugars. It's not much sweeter, particularly if you discount the water. The vitamins/minerals are negligible, you need to eat food for those things anyway. Any speculative "health giving properties" are unfounded, and I doubt it's likely that anything would be significant anyway at the scale of a reasonable amount of sweetener one could include in their diet.


I won't dispute that raw honey (not supermarket honey) has a lower glycemic index. Overall, honey is really not much better than table sugar. It's pretty much just as bad as table sugar.

*My numbers aren't perfect, I'm rounding. The 2½ tablespoons was only ideal for the protein comparison. They're close enough for this discussion. Using your link's numbers for honey even though that website has inconsistent numbers from page to page.

 

[Takhisis]

DHMO is also poisonous in large dose.

Well, duh!

 

[warpus]

Sugars and carbs and not fat are what are making people fat.

I've lost 12-14 pounds in under 2 months by limiting my carb/sugar consumption to <20g a day, cheating once/twice/thrice a week and sticking to a high-fat diet

Not only that, I also feel a lot more energetic and far less lethargic.

It's really blown my mind. I've increased my bacon consumption by a factor of 5 at least. That's supposed to make you fat, right? WRONG

The food pyramid is a lie. Human stomachs aren't built to process as many carbs & sugars as we consume these days. For millions of years our ancestors were eating meats, fruits, berries, and nuts, and that's pretty much it - that's the sort of food that our stomachs have evolved to process the best. Breads, pastas, etc. only entered the picture 6,000 years ago or so - that's not enough time for significant changes to occur to our digestive systems via evolution.

If anyone's curious about my diet (I prefer to call it a lifestyle), it's called keto. It works as follows: Once you limit your sugar/carb intake to 20g a day or less, your body will stop producing insulin (or it limits its production at least). When that happens your body starts using up stored fat for energy - by eating sugars and fats you are basically telling your body to store the energy as fat instead.

6 months into the diet you are "allowed" to eat up to 50/60g of carbs/sugars a day. The details are up to you though - I've modified the diet by cheating on weekends for example, and once I reach my ideal weight I will probably eat a sandwich here and there, have some pasta, etc. I won't overwhelm my body with tons of sugars & carbs - moderation is key. Pop is def. off my menu no matter what.

So yeah, it's true.. Sugars and carbs make people fat.

 

[El_Machinae]

I really, really, really hope that your 20 grams is entirely plant-based. In fact, I don't know if you can get enough vegetable with only 20 g (that's less than two apples!). Processed meats are pretty crazy as it is, and you're going to want as much defense as possible against them in your intestines.

 

[warpus]

I really, really, really hope that your 20 grams is entirely plant-based. In fact, I don't know if you can get enough vegetable with only 20 g (that's less than two apples!). Processed meats are pretty crazy as it is, and you're going to want as much defense as possible against them in your intestines.

Yep, ever since I started this diet/lifestyle my consumption of veggies has gone up. So, some of it comes from veggies, some of it comes from beer

And yeah, I can't eat too much fruit, cause they're all sweet and crap. Veggies ftw

I'm not that strict with this whole thing either - most people doing this are obese or overweight and are looking to lose significant amounts of weight. I mainly started doing this so that I'd feel better - the weight loss was a secondary objective. This weekend I'm heading to Montreal - so of course I'm going to have to consume a large bowl of poutine... for example. Another example - Chelsea and TFC play(ed) today - that means a beer or two.

I would say that I've been managing <20g for maybe 3/4 days out of 7, each week. On weekends I am over by quite a bit, probably.. still nowhere near the amounts I used to consume before I started this though. I'll treat myself to things like milk, fruit, maybe a hamburger, a slice of pizza, whatever..

As for the carbs, and I'm not sure if this makes a difference, but fiber is an important part of this diet - you've got to consume it.. it doesn't count against your carb count.

 

[Narz]

How do you make your own chocolate?

Chocolate powder, chocolate butter (cacao butter) and honey. Mix it up. You have to heat the cacao butter a bit since it's melting point is 90F or so IIRC.

I hear good things about dark chocolate, but eating chocolate may be morally wrong based on how it is acquired in Africa.

There is fair trade chocolate.

No, I mean, I backed off "just as bad" immediately, I'd liked the sound of it but you're right, it's not "just as bad". I'm not saying it's the same. I'm saying that it's not significantly better than sugar. It is absolutely better than sugar, it has some minerals and a lower glycemic index. But definitely not "not even close to as bad" and it's not really food either.

How do you mean it's "not a food"? Pretty much any human who can get their hands on it will eat it (and many animals).

That same 2½ tablespoons, the kidney bean of protein, an amount of sugar that probably is more than your diet should make room for every day, has 3mg calcium, or one and a half kidney beans. One and a third kidney beans worth of iron. Half a kidney bean of magnesium and phosphorous. One kidney bean of potassium. Four kidney beans of zinc. The honey has more sodium than the bean, but nobody's short on that. One quarter of a kidney bean of fiber.

So, sorry, I guess it's sugar with four beans in it if you're concerned about your zinc intake.

Sources vary on the glycemic index. Supermarket honey is not substantially better than sugar (less than 15% lower, if at all). Raw honey has a noticeably better score (almost 50% lower) according to some sources.

Raw honey FTW!

Sources vary on sweetness, too. Most generous difference I've found is honey being 25% sweeter than table sugar.

Hmm, I make cookie dough where I used to use 1/2 cup of brown sugar & a 1/4 cup of white. I think I use about half the amount of honey now (by weight) but I can't be sure, I don't measure anything when I make stuff.

This isn't interesting.

It might be interesting to people who suffer from allergies. I hate when people act like just because something hasn't been proven yet it's false. If everyone had that attitude no one would ever study anything or even come up with hypotheses & we'd still be in the dark ages.

"Addicted to honey / addicted to

sugar" is a meaningless comparison, the sugar addicts would be perfectly happy with honey and if someone ate as much honey as the sugar addicts there's nothing that would distinguish them. It's just circumstance that the cheapest sugars are most common. You're not immune to the harms of sugar because you eat honey instead. You're only better off because you pay more attention to your food generally.

You could be right though I still would maintain sugar is more addictive (though I can't prove it, I'd put money on the fact I'm right). Kind of like coco leaves are gonna be less addictive than cocaine. More refined stuff is usually more addictive.

On any practical scale honey is around 80% sugar and 20% water. The sugars might be a bit better, but they're still sugars. It's not much sweeter, particularly if you discount the water. The vitamins/minerals are negligible, you need to eat food for those things anyway. Any speculative "health giving properties" are unfounded, and I doubt it's likely that anything would be significant anyway at the scale of a reasonable amount of sweetener one could include in their diet.

You can't say they're unfounded absolutely. Probably overblown but I don't think a modest amount of honey in someone's diet is detrimental whereas I'd say a modest amount of table sugar in someone's diet is detrimental. I notice a big difference with even a little bit of sugar whereas not much with honey. You could call it placebo effect of course & I couldn't prove you wrong.

I won't dispute that raw honey (not supermarket honey) has a lower glycemic index. Overall, honey is really not much better than table sugar. It's pretty much just as bad as table sugar.

I don't agree & I'd be willing to put money behind my hypothesis (if anyone ever did a large scale study on people eating raw honey sweetened sauces & dressings & snacks vs. sugary ones, course this would never happen but if it did). I'm not saying honey is a wonderfood, just that it's not close to as bad as table sugar.

I think we'll just have to agree that a diet high in simple sugars without much fiber is a bad thing & agree to disagree (or we can argue some more, though I can't guarantee participation ).

Sugars and carbs and not fat are what are making people fat.

No, eating too much is what makes people fat. If carbs alone made people fat the rice eating Chinese would be among the fattest people.

I've lost 12-14 pounds in under 2 months by limiting my carb/sugar consumption to <20g a day, cheating once/twice/thrice a week and sticking to a high-fat diet

Not only that, I also feel a lot more energetic and far less lethargic.

It's really blown my mind. I've increased my bacon consumption by a factor of 5 at least. That's supposed to make you fat, right? WRONG

Depends on overall caloric intake & also activity level of course. Glad you're feeling better.

The food pyramid is a lie.

Agreed.

Human stomachs aren't built to process as many carbs & sugars as we consume these days. For millions of years our ancestors were eating meats, fruits, berries, and nuts, and that's pretty much it - that's the sort of food that our stomachs have evolved to process the best. Breads, pastas, etc. only entered the picture 6,000 years ago or so - that's not enough time for significant changes to occur to our digestive systems via evolution.

Our ancestors highly valued starchy roots & anthropologists speculate the adaptation to digest starch may have been a major factor in human evolution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6983330.stm

If anyone's curious about my diet (I prefer to call it a lifestyle), it's called keto. It works as follows: Once you limit your sugar/carb intake to 20g a day or less, your body will stop producing insulin (or it limits its production at least). When that happens your body starts using up stored fat for energy - by eating sugars and fats you are basically telling your body to store the energy as fat instead.

6 months into the diet you are "allowed" to eat up to 50/60g of carbs/sugars a day. The details are up to you though - I've modified the diet by cheating on weekends for example, and once I reach my ideal weight I will probably eat a sandwich here and there, have some pasta, etc. I won't overwhelm my body with tons of sugars & carbs - moderation is key. Pop is def. off my menu no matter what.

I'm definitely curious. I've never done a low carb diet. I lived with a guy who was raw paleo for awhile & ate virtually no carbs (a small fruit of some kind every couple days or so) and he seemed ok (though not super energetic). I think humans are capable of adapting to all sorts of diets, it's one of our strong suits.

So yeah, it's true.. Sugars and carbs make people fat.

When they overeat them they do. Again, common sense says that as a general principle that's not true since most of the world's poorest people eat primarily carbs.


*My numbers aren't perfect, I'm rounding. The 2½ tablespoons was only ideal for the protein comparison. They're close enough for this discussion. Using your link's numbers for honey even though that website has inconsistent numbers from page to page. [/QUOTE]

 

[Takhisis]

Chocolate powder, chocolate butter (cacao butter) and honey. Mix it up. You have to heat the cacao butter a bit since it's melting point is 90F or so IIRC.

Isn't chocolate powder already chocolate? Why not just buy chocolate?

 

[Zelig]

I'm not saying honey is a wonderfood, just that it's not close to as bad as table sugar.

So is the majority of stuff in sugar not bad for you, and it's only some trace stuff in table sugar that makes it bad?

Or is the majority of stuff in sugar bad, but honey has trace stuff that cancels out the badness?

 

[warpus]

No, eating too much is what makes people fat. If carbs alone made people fat the rice eating Chinese would be among the fattest people.

Obviously if you eat more calories than you burn off, consistently, you will gain weight, no matter what you eat. I was speaking more generally - the obesity problem in north america (if you can call it that) is mostly due to sugars and carbs - not fat

Our ancestors highly valued starchy roots & anthropologists speculate the adaptation to digest starch may have been a major factor in human evolution.

That's interesting, I will have to look more into that. I'm not even an armchair nutritionist, by any means, this stuff is mostly new to me.. but the thing is that we are consuming way too many sugary & carby foods these days. Our stomachs can't handle that much crap - they're used to processing a more balanced diet consisting of meats, berries, vegetables, etc. some starches sure, but how much of the caveman diet did those make up? I really have no idea, but I'd have to guess "not much"

I'm definitely curious. I've never done a low carb diet. I lived with a guy who was raw paleo for awhile & ate virtually no carbs (a small fruit of some kind every couple days or so) and he seemed ok (though not super energetic). I think humans are capable of adapting to all sorts of diets, it's one of our strong suits.

I didn't think it'd work - but I am down 12 pounds and it seems like I haven't really put any effort into this - aside from resisting the temptation to drink a coke or eat a pizza.

My regiment is eating a large bacon + eggs filled breakfast and mostly staying away from sweet & carby foods as much as I can. The big breakfast keeps me very full until 1pm or so, which is when I have a small late lunch - maybe a chicken caesar salad or some breaded (with parmesan and/or almond flour, not breadcrubs) cutlets or chickenbreasts. For dinner I've been eating a lot of steak with a ton of veggies on the side (I can't believe I actually eat broccoli these days.. I used to eat close to no vegetables)

I cheat way too much and somehow I am down 12 pounds, without any extra exercise or anything like that. I play indoor soccer once a week and I've noticed that I've been a bit more energetic - I suppose the loss of weight could be one explanation - but it really feels like my inner organs are much happier now that they don't have to do so much work breaking down carbs.

When they overeat them they do. Again, common sense says that as a general principle that's not true since most of the world's poorest people eat primarily carbs.

The world's poorest people likely don't consume as many calories as they need per day - which is why they aren't obese.

If you severely limit your carb/sugar intake and replace all those calories with fats and proteins, you will lose weight. When you eat carbs, your body produces insulin, which sends a signal that fat should be stored. and so it is. If there is no insulin your body will be burning off that stored fat.

I'm still surprised that it works, but it's really made me stop and rethink what I eat

 

[Narz]

So is the majority of stuff in sugar not bad for you, and it's only some trace stuff in table sugar that makes it bad?

Sugar is empty calories with nothing else in it. So yeah, that's bad.

Or is the majority of stuff in sugar bad, but honey has trace stuff that cancels out the badness?

It's not quite as concentrated and it's lower on the glycemic index. Humans have been eating honey since before we were humans but processed cane sugar is fairly new & is associated with a ton of health problems that honey is not. It appears to have some anti-bacterial, anti-microbial properties & generally doesn't seem as harmful as sugar. There's still alot about nutrition we're learning so why it's not as bad is not fully understood yet.

The only analogy I can think of on short notice to help you understand is coca leaves vs. cocaine. Coca leaves are less concentrated & probably have some positive attributes whereas cocaine is just the bad stuff.

Not the best analogy but the best I've got right now.

There's been alot of studies cane sugar vs. HFCS, I haven't seen any testing either of those against honey, if anyone comes across any feel free to share as it'd be much more edifying than the back & forth & disingenuous questioning.

Obviously if you eat more calories than you burn off, consistently, you will gain weight, no matter what you eat. I was speaking more generally - the obesity problem in north america (if you can call it that) is mostly due to sugars and carbs - not fat

It seems hard to know for sure because Americans eat so much fat and sugar and also hundreds more Calories than they need every day.

That's interesting, I will have to look more into that. I'm not even an armchair nutritionist, by any means, this stuff is mostly new to me.. but the thing is that we are consuming way too many sugary & carby foods these days. Our stomachs can't handle that much crap - they're used to processing a more balanced diet consisting of meats, berries, vegetables, etc. some starches sure, but how much of the caveman diet did those make up? I really have no idea, but I'd have to guess "not much"

Well they didn't have wonderbread! A starchy root (or some wild honey) was a nice treat. Eventually tribal people began to cultivate root crops or at least find them regularly but I agree, it's not like they were going to down on starch, let alone grains, 3x a day.

I didn't think it'd work - but I am down 12 pounds and it seems like I haven't really put any effort into this - aside from resisting the temptation to drink a coke or eat a pizza.

I can see the appeal. It does seem that low-carb works for many people. I'm curious to try it as it'd be good for my willpower even if I eventually went back.

The world's poorest people likely don't consume as many calories as they need per day - which is why they aren't obese.

If you severely limit your carb/sugar intake and replace all those calories with fats and proteins, you will lose weight. When you eat carbs, your body produces insulin, which sends a signal that fat should be stored. and so it is. If there is no insulin your body will be burning off that stored fat.

But as long as your active your body will burn the carbs.

I'm actually really curious about the whole debate as to which burns cleaner - carbs or fat. I've yet to get a definitive answer on it (was hoping someone knowledgable on the macronutrient issue would post in duster's nutrition thread but no dice so far).

I'm still surprised that it works, but it's really made me stop and rethink what I eat

Stopping & rethinking what you're doing/eating/thinking/etc. is almost always a good thing (especially if you do it often).