Sugar - the new poison

[Paul6754]

 

Sugar has absolutely no nutritional value. The sugar cane and beet is drained of all goodness (molasses) which is then added to animal feedstuff so that the animals can benefit from the vitamins and minerals.

 

Because there is no vitamins and/or minerals in sugar nature takes the vitamins out of the cells and calcium out of the bones to try to use it. Then more sugar is consumed and the body can not cope; so the liver deposits it around the body in the form of fat.

 

Sugar is a generic name for many types of carbohydrate molecules. The sugar you probably refer to is table sugar which is a molecule known as sucrose. In the body the table sugar (sucrose) is broken down into two simpler "sugars" called glucose and fructose, glucose is stored in the body as a polymer called glycogen.

 

I'm unsure what you mean when you post "Sugar has absolutely no nutrient value", but glucose from the sugar you eat (and from other carbohydrate containing foods) is a major source of energy in cells, eg. glucose is involved in most of the energy production in the brain enabling it to function, so a pretty important molecule. This is borne out for someone who has a low blood glucose level rendering them unable to think and being confused.

 

Without glucose (from sucrose) your cells wouldn't survive hence you would die, eat too much glucose and you would develop diabetes and eventually die if left untreated. So sugar (sucrose/glucose) is essential to life but too much of it is produces detrimental effects.

 

Vitamins have totally different chemical structures to sugars, only vitamin C is remotely "sugar like". A vitamin by definition is a molecule essential for a healthy life but which the body doesn't produce enough of so vitamins have to be obtained from external sources eg food and supplements.

 

Aspartamine is a chemical which produces a sweet taste and can be used instead of sugar, it has a totally different chemical structure to sugar/glucose/fructose. Aspartamine is a chemical compound and as such has been shown to be safe in low doses but increase the dose and it will produce deleterious effects.

 

The brain doesn't need to be flooded with dopamine, if this did happen it almost certainly would end in death. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter and its synthesis and release in the brain is tightly controlled, it's involved in sending signals from neurons to other nerve cells and also plays an important role in the periphery.

 

I apologize if I come over as a know it all but this is really very basic organic chemistry/biochemistry.

[Paul6754]

And Paul, your cliché's about 'a little of everything is ok' - if someone offers you some polonium, and cigarettes, and an asbestos pie, I take it that'll be your supper sorted out then will it ?

And it is not true that everything is toxic if you eat enough of it

 

David, I didn't say "a little of everything is OK", I said everything is toxic if you eat/injest enough of it plus the advice of my Granny about food, Polonium, cigarrettes and asbestos pies aren't food in my book. It is fact that everything is toxic if you eat/injest enough of it, even water upon which human life is based.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Everything is toxic if you eat/injest enough of it, even foods/chemicals which are essential for life. The advice your granny gave, "Eat everything in moderation but no one thing in excess" is the best available.

 

True but does seem that it's only now that people generally are addressing their sugar intake and that the levels we eat every day are in fact too high

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Sugar is 8 times more addictive that cocaine and it actually causes cancer.

 

That's a bold claim..source?

 

 

 

Sugar has absolutely no nutritional value. The sugar cane and beet is drained of all goodness (molasses) which is then added to animal feedstuff so that the animals can benefit from the vitamins and minerals.

 

Because there is no vitamins and/or minerals in sugar nature takes the vitamins out of the cells and calcium out of the bones to try to use it. Then more sugar is consumed and the body can not cope; so the liver deposits it around the body in the form of fat.

 

70% of U.K. farmers stopped producing sugar beet because the bugs did so much damage that the profit was almost none existant. Now they are beginning to produce again because they are using GMO beet which is bug resistant. Profitable again for farmers, but GMO food? YUk!

 

Without prejudice...source?

 

But, beware do not turn to sweeteners such as Aspartame which does more damage than sugar but in different ways. Apart from causing people to crave for carbs like Chocolate it prevents the brain from producing dopamine. The brain needs to be flooded by dopamine and a shortage of it causes depression and other complaints.

 

Ditto

[JOHNNYAITCH]

David, I didn't say "a little of everything is OK", I said everything is toxic if you eat/injest enough of it .

 

That covers asbestos and polonium (and probably ciggies too )...even the tiniest amount causes harm.

 

Interesting scientific detail re sugar..maybe the info put out there is a little too generic but then needs to be for the general public (such as me) to get it. Seems to me there needs to be a drive form govts and regulators to make sure we are aware of what we are taking in compared to what we 'should' but also to reduce the use of sugar in foods and drinks where possible. I also think that the 'sugar tax' is worth exploring further. I do find myself wondering that if Coca Cola etc were 'invented' now would they be allowed???

 

I guess the message is keep an eye on how much sugar you are taking in, watch your weight, get some exercise and if you do notice changes such as weeing a lot more, thirst, sudden unexplained weight changes, blurred vision....see your GP!!!!

[geosname]

That covers asbestos and polonium (and probably ciggies too )...even the tiniest amount causes harm.

 

Interesting scientific detail re sugar..maybe the info put out there is a little too generic but then needs to be for the general public (such as me) to get it. Seems to me there needs to be a drive form govts and regulators to make sure we are aware of what we are taking in compared to what we 'should' but also to reduce the use of sugar in foods and drinks where possible. I also think that the 'sugar tax' is worth exploring further. I do find myself wondering that if Coca Cola etc were 'invented' now would they be allowed???

 

I guess the message is keep an eye on how much sugar you are taking in, watch your weight, get some exercise and if you do notice changes such as weeing a lot more, thirst, sudden unexplained weight changes, blurred vision....see your GP!!!!

 

The answer isnt increasing the cost of things that are bad for us.... its in reducing the cost of things that are good for us.

If the price of somethings are increased because they are a danger to health why isnt beer 50 quid a pint? spirits/wine 200 quid a bottle? A liquor license 100K?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

The answer isnt increasing the cost of things that are bad for us.... its in reducing the cost of things that are good for us.

If the price of somethings are increased because they are a danger to health why isnt beer 50 quid a pint? spirits/wine 200 quid a bottle? A liquor license 100K?

 

Maybe they should be a lot more expensive?? But then again we need the tax revenue to fund services

 

I don't see how the govt can manipulate the market to make things cheaper..not unless you are suggesting they subsidise producers of food/drinks that are 'good' for us? I suppose they could look at reduced tax on profits for those making the good stuff or grants or support cheaper imported goods that are healthy but then you get into unfair competition territory and the effect on UK producers/manufacturers..same as you might with a sugar tax. I haven't thought this thru in detail :(

[Trampilot]

Being married to a health freak I get tagged along eating the same stuff so we both have an active interest in this. To those who are the same minded, chances are you've known that sugar is the bad guy for a while. I believe it was added to "diet foods" in the 70s to replace fats and to give the food a "low fat" selling point. From that point on fat was the bad guy and sugar the good guy. And what a load of bobbins that is.

 

The majority of non-whole food nowadays is over processed rubbish which contains so little nutrient value you can gorge yourself on it without feeling full, consequently you get fatter (should that now be "sugarrer?). Now by comparison my mother is very old school with her recipies and its all full fat, oils and butter. You eat something she's made and you won't need seconds. But its all made from scratch. Big difference. Most people who eat a Big Mac could probably eat another. That's probably my daily calorie intake in one go.

 

What annoys me are foods which are advertised as "healthy" - cereals I'm looking at you. Did you know All Bran has more sugar in it per serving than that Lion Bar cereal? Or those ****** breakfast biscuits.... look at the calories. Eat one. Feel like you've consumed that many? Doubt it. Tell you what - have another packet of them. Feel full yet? Oh you've reached your calorie limit for the day. Dreadful things.

 

Fizzy drinks I stopped having years ago. They strip paint - why on earth would you want to drink anything that does that?!

 

We try to keep to a simple mantra - if it doesn't look like what it originally looked like, then it probably isn't what it says it is. We do of course stray from this. Sausages are allowed as they are the greatest invention ever.

[Trampilot]

Sugar Tax isn't the way. It's far too complicated to impose. Too many pitfalls.

 

On the extreme, I'd prefer our culture to stop this polite sociology tripe and call people fat who are fat / unhealthy who are unhealthy, and actually stop looking for "isms" and "syndromes" to blame it on. Those who use these terms to describe why they are obese then go and eat a load of pizzas. Fine you have the problem - then why eat like a moron? If you have a peanut allergy do you then actively go out and eat peanuts? So why not expect someone with an "ism" that makes them fat not to gorge on a load of crap?

 

Then again I'd also make the doors narrower on fast food places and make sure trousers only do up to a size 40L. :D

 

There is also the otherside of this. Shops.

 

Food is now available everywhere. Far more than it ever has been before. This is part of the problem. Apparently according to an article in The Grocer I think it was, the current trend of "impulse food shopping" means people are preparing food less. In other words - ready meals. With added sugar, salt etc etc etc...

 

This goes far wider than a sugar tax and a few labels.

[geosname]

 

Then again I'd also make the doors narrower on fast food places and make sure trousers only do up to a size 40L. :D

 

I dont think my eldest lad would be happy with that, hes 6'3'' and long isnt long enough... my youngest lad would be even more displeased... hes 6'7''

[geosname]

Ive had a problem with my weight, not because I eat a load of cack food but because I cant exercise, physically cant... so about 12 months ago I changed the way I eat, I dont have set meal times or set meals, I eat when Im hungry and I have reduced the portion size because I dont need what I used to... I have lost 26Kilos and feel better for it... My wife on the other hand is the total opposite... she weighs 45Kilo and eats 5+ times a day, not including snacks, and most Thai cooking involves adding sugar, its actually a condiment on the tables when you go out to eat along with other things like chilli and fish sauce etc.

[Trampilot]

Ive had a problem with my weight, not because I eat a load of cack food but because I cant exercise, physically cant... so about 12 months ago I changed the way I eat, I dont have set meal times or set meals, I eat when Im hungry and I have reduced the portion size because I dont need what I used to... I have lost 26Kilos and feel better for it... My wife on the other hand is the total opposite... she weighs 45Kilo and eats 5+ times a day, not including snacks, and most Thai cooking involves adding sugar, its actually a condiment on the tables when you go out to eat along with other things like chilli and fish sauce etc.

 

Well done that's brilliant - this is exactly what I mean. Nobody forces the food into you except you. Unless you are getting turned into Geosname Fois Grois.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Sugar Tax isn't the way. It's far too complicated to impose. Too many pitfalls.

 

On the extreme, I'd prefer our culture to stop this polite sociology tripe and call people fat who are fat / unhealthy who are unhealthy, and actually stop looking for "isms" and "syndromes" to blame it on. Those who use these terms to describe why they are obese then go and eat a load of pizzas. Fine you have the problem - then why eat like a moron? If you have a peanut allergy do you then actively go out and eat peanuts? So why not expect someone with an "ism" that makes them fat not to gorge on a load of crap?

 

Then again I'd also make the doors narrower on fast food places and make sure trousers only do up to a size 40L. :D

 

There is also the otherside of this. Shops.

 

Food is now available everywhere. Far more than it ever has been before. This is part of the problem. Apparently according to an article in The Grocer I think it was, the current trend of "impulse food shopping" means people are preparing food less. In other words - ready meals. With added sugar, salt etc etc etc...

 

This goes far wider than a sugar tax and a few labels.

 

Totally agree that there are many aspects to this; education in schools is one. People taking more individual responsibility is another..for example I'm all for the safety net of the NHS but there has to be some way found of persuading people to take more responsibility for their health when it comes to diet..the NHS just can't cope

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Ive had a problem with my weight, not because I eat a load of cack food but because I cant exercise, physically cant... so about 12 months ago I changed the way I eat, I dont have set meal times or set meals, I eat when Im hungry and I have reduced the portion size because I dont need what I used to... I have lost 26Kilos and feel better for it...

 

Nice one

 

Lost 16 pounds (what's that.. 7 kilos ish?) in the past month just by eating more fresh veg/fruit and quality meat/chicken/fish (large meals as well) and in doing so not eating much of anything else. That plus some daily exercises. Can't remember the last time I had a takeaway or any sort of fast food when I am at or near home. or any meat product we didn't get from the same local butchers. I appreciate not everyone can do this

 

Also haven't touched alcohol for years which must help...surprising how much sugar/calories in a pint (I was a real ale, cider or Guinness man)

[PVTony]

That's a bold claim..source?

 

 

 

 

 

Without prejudice...source?

 

 

 

Ditto

 

I read many articles on and about nutrition and so can not always remember just where I have read about a 'source' that you ask in many replies of yours.

You will certainly remeber your ten X ten table but may not remember the source from where you learned it.

As it happens I did save a copy of the article about sugar and leave the address below for you to click onto and read at your leisure.

http://thetruthaboutcancer.com/downloads/TTAC%20_Eliminate_Sugar_Report.pdf

m