JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: muman613 on October 25, 2014, 11:27:59 PM
-
Shalom & Shavuah Tov...
Last week I mentioned something in another thread concerning how the Sugar industry has been using its 'muscle' to influence and alter the government and scientific response to the health threat caused by sugar. Most people may scoff and thing that sugar is harmless, and I too have felt this way for most of my life. Let me say up-front that I do not condone the taxation or banning of sugary drinks in order to control peoples buying habits... But I think that the truth should be known to people about the real health risks of this sweet product.
Fist let me confess to my own sins. I am a sugar addict. I recognize this fact because of my virtually unbreakable addiction to drinking Coca-Cola. At the risk of defaming myself I will expose the fact that I drink over a 12-pack of Coca-Cola a day (A 24pack in 2 days). It is my worst addiction (including the times 20 years ago when I struggled with cocaine) and one I have promised each year to conquer, and yet my resolutions are always violated within days of making them.
I have blamed my mother for this, though I realize I am just looking to assign blame. In her house we freely drank soda and my mother kept soda hidden in case we ran out. When I spoke with her recently she is telling me that she too is struggling to give up the sweet stuff as her doctors are telling her that she needs to be concerned with her health.
I have learned that some of my physical issues may be caused by sugar... And even so I find it difficult to give up the sugar habit. I realize that JTF members are mostly pro-healthy diet, I must admit I don't eat especially bad foods, but I do drink a lot of soda and like sweet deserts and snacks.
I have found some videos which explain the dangers of sugar...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDaYa0AB8TQ
-
I have been concerned about the possibility I may have the parasite Candida and I have not had a chance to talk with my doctor about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkvCYV2LBtg
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHh5odELpi4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlAqt1UiQP4
-
Is there a "sugar industry?"
Companies which make food add sugar to the produts because that makes it taste better and taste sweeter, and that is what people like. I don't believe there is any vast conspiracy by sugar producers to kill people. Think about it. If they kill their customers there is no one left to buy sugar. There is market demand for sweet products because people like the way it tastes.
Muman it is terrible for your health that you drink so many cokes per day. It's just an insane amount. I do not drink soda. Only water and occassionally seltzer. I say this to you because when I was a kid I was drinking probably 2 cans of soda per day and loved it.. YOU CAN QUIT. Only water is a true thirst quencher. soda makes you thirst more after you drink it.
If you have tried and failed to stop cold turkey, then do something much simpler. Keep a log of your daily soda intake for a week. If it's on average 12 per day, then cut it to 10 for a week and see what happens. Then move on to 7 per day. And so on. Also carry a water bottle around and try to drink some when you feel thirsty and then see what happens to the urge.
I think if you are drinking 12 per day and cannot stop, it is a serious addiction and may require a 12 step program, like any addiction does. It is the only proven way to overcome an addiction.
Btw almost all food we eat, no matter its nutrient content, gets converted to sugar by the body to use as the main energy source for cells. So it is not merely a "sugar problem" but a calorie problem too. The more calories. You eat, the more sugar your body will make out of it. But having a sugary spike drink like soda is a bigger problem since it's direct and also provides no value whatsoever.
-
Sugar bad, weed good; yes, we get it. :laugh:
-
.....so don't suck in all that sugar.
what's the problem?
I rarely drink soda like coke.
I drink water. I have no desire for sugar.
and yes, the evil corporations are out to kill us all. they're not interested in money at all. they just want us all dead. these evil corporations are so corporationie. they are such corporationie corporations. damn corporations they're such corporationist corporations.
-
.....so don't suck in all that sugar.
what's the problem?
I rarely drink soda like coke.
I drink water. I have no desire for sugar.
and yes, the evil corporations are out to kill us all. they're not interested in money at all. they just want us all dead. these evil corporations are so corporationie. they are such corporationie corporations. damn corporations they're such corporationist corporations.
I think you miss the point and did not watch the videos I posted. Nobody is suggesting that they want to kill us. What is being suggested is the truth, and the facts back it up, that the companies are selling products which they know are unhealthy and they know people will buy them because they have become addicted to them.
These products do not kill people immediately but they contribute to an unhealthy society. Currently I am not exposed to much marketing of these products as I don't watch TV or cable anymore (gave it up 10 years ago). But the bad habits of my youth have had a detrimental effect on my health, as it has a good number of American citizens, because various scientific findings were buried by the sugar industry.
So I don't think it is something to be so flippant with. In the 60s-80s the TV advertising was pushing sugary products like they did cigarettes.
Corporations should have moral values and not attempt to mislead the people concerning the potential dangers of the products. Similarly in drug advertisements when the announcer reads the potential side effects very quickly so that nobody can understand what he is saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0KFkQNFxsk
At least in this video they slowly explained the side effects, and it is not an example of what I was trying to say in the above paragraph.
-
no I'm not going to watch 15 X 45 minute videos.
people who stuff themselves with sugar will get diabetes. they know that. they can barely walk. they know they're in trouble. but they still go to diners.
sugar will kill you. smoking will kill you. But marijuana is good for you.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4wYOxe8HFE
-
no I'm not going to watch 15 X 45 minute videos.
people who stuff themselves with sugar will get diabetes. they know that. they can barely walk. they know they're in trouble. but they still go to diners.
sugar will kill you. smoking will kill you. But marijuana is good for you.
Well I would not put it that way... Smoking will kill you, Alcohol will ultimately kill you, Sugar will kill you, but MJ has medicinal properties which may be advantageous. So on a level of danger I would agree that the first two are more dangerous than the third.
-
Well I would not put it that way... Smoking will kill you, Alcohol will ultimately kill you, Sugar will kill you, but MJ has medicinal properties which may be advantageous. So on a level of danger I would agree that the first two are more dangerous than the third.
glad we agree. keep smoking that marijuana. Its good for you.
A dozen marijuana a day will keep the doctor away.
Throw away that apple and pick up a joint.
I never smoked. I don't drink...much. I don't take in much sugar (as fat people). And I've never bother with your magic marijuana.
-
glad we agree. keep smoking that marijuana. Its good for you.
A dozen marijuana a day will keep the doctor away.
Throw away that apple and pick up a joint.
I never smoked. I don't drink...much. I don't take in much sugar (as fat people). And I've never bother with your magic marijuana.
And your purpose of continuing to discuss marijuana in relation to sugar?
As I stated, in my experience the dangers are ranked according to what is most dangerous. It seems to me, in my life, that sugar is playing a bad role in my health. When I used to be able to exercise more (I used to take long hikes, ride bikes, and roller-skate in my 20s-30s) I kept thin. But when my vascular issues started I was unable to walk as much, and thus my weight increased.
My point is to say that there are dangerous things on the market today and often the industries lobbies cause questionable ethics to take place. I don't know why anyone would want to defend these kinds of practices.
-
LOL been having a nonsense overload here.
1. Sugar is good, very beneficial and has many important nutrients.
2. White "sugar" is not sugar, it had some sugar in it, and it is a carcinogenic substance with no nutrients of any kind that are not deformed beyond all usefulness. It is cooked to the point of uselessness, some things are extracted, and then bleached, or it would be black crap.
3. Candida is a fungus which your body will form tumors around to protect if it gets out of hand, i.e. cancer. Maple syrup with baking soda injected in the affected area handles it, or that stuff girls use for yeast infection.
4. There is a "sugar" industry, which sells this bleached ex-sugar. They are part of all the other corporations that hate competition, and have turned your country into infants helplessly suckling at their tit. There would be billions of dollars of lost productivity in a year in the USA if people didn't have their "sugar" fix. They are in bed with the tobacco industry, and 14-30% (30% for cigars) of all cigarettes are white "sugar", which causes cancer, and even faster when smoked.
5. Your body converts food into sugar for use and fat for storage. It does not convert it to the poison Americans are convinced is sugar, just as your sweat does not contain the poison Americans believe is salt.
6. Too much sugar will make you fat. If you are addicted to sugar (referring to "organic" (a.k.a. actual) non-processed sugar), try switching to Stevia. If you are addicted to toxic waste crumbs, it's a major addiction like smoking, and for all the bad things about it, the one that overshadows all the irrelevant things like havoc on your mind and body is decreased sexual libido, strength and development (and old guys, you still have sexual development going on every second.
7. Stinks, this has nothing to do with weed, but maybe a few hits might dislodge the vaulting pole up your rear.
8. If those few big toxic waste and brainwashing corporations told people what their products do, no one would buy them, and of course they also want money, ack. It's no secret that many up top want people dead, and they're not hiding their disdain for the increasing population due to the increased competition it causes, nor their population control solutions to the problem. From the UN agenda to books to T.V., they openly say we need to cut down on people. However, this is not an "they're everything everywhere" conspiracy, it's very small groups of very sick individuals that have laughable plans that succeed, since they've trained their victims to support and protect them.
9. No amount of toxic waste is good, tolerable, acceptable, or any positive word. If it has white "sugar", don't eat it. You're literally trading a tongue tickle for your brawn and balls. A little trade every now and then is more retarded, because at least the "sugar" abuser knows he has a problem. It may be hard to avoid white "sugar" if you like buying overpriced poison from shops. Do not buy overpriced poison from shops, and you'll be OK.
I believe writing in numbered point form from here on out will prevent the misunderstandings that the distinguished ranchers around are guaranteed to immediately act on.
Muman, have you ever tried (idk the word in English) eau de grenadine?(http://www.spiritsoffrance.com.au/494-thickbox/vedrenne-sirop-de-grenadine-0-700ml.jpg)
Find a quality one, mix it in water, it tastes sweet so you'll get your craving fixed, and will kill you less. There are other flavored drinks that are great and have no calories. The first step in getting rid of the addiction is to convince yourself that you are not drinking a drink, you are slurping toxic sludge that really tastes gross, and chemicals are covering it. It helps if you actually find a drink from the plant that coke is made from (I have it written down, it's a Brazilian plant) and you will see it tastes kind of the same but way better, and less like toxic chemical crap.
The next step is to ween. When you are on your last can of the day, dump half of it down the drain. The feeling of loss you experience doing that now and in the future will mask the headache and feeling of need in your body (lasts 1-2 weeks strong if you cold-turkey, if you can go without hankey-pankey for that long, this is a cake walk compared). Do that every night for a week. (this is not a cold-turkey plan, but that ultimately needs to be your purpose and intention in doing this, or you will 99% sure relapse, and will abuse the toxic substance even more. Every step-plan ends with cold-turkey anyways, so as you drink your cokes every day, remember that you're doing it as part of your plan to stop drinking them constantly (you will be able to have 1 every now and then like everyone 2-4 weeks after you have quit completely), and to make sure you don't forget, refer to the next step.)
The third step is repurposing. If you have not already replaced your pepsi with a non-toxic alternative, you are in a precarious position in a critical stage. As addictions must be replaced, buy the same amount of cokes, and dump one out at night, which will be a character-building reminder that you are trying to quit, and the little time after you regret wasting the money you spent on it is the most critical moment for you to say "I want to drink this many times a day forever" or "I want to quit". You will be furious and frustrated at this step, which are both necessary to ensure you fight for an alternative instead of taking the path you came on back. Gradually reduce your coke consumption by 1 per week, while ensuring you are EXTREMELY serious about doing this, and sticking to the letter like the chief Rabbi's cantor. If you change your plan in any way, or don't see having one coke to reward or satisfy yourself as a problem, it is 99% likely that you will relapse, and almost as likely that you will increase your consumption.
The final step is the cold turkey. Congratulations, you are now drinking one coke per day (at the time when you have the most physical habit associated with it), and have replaced your chemical spill consumption with a tasty and food-based alternative. Pat yourself on the back, but don't be gentle. You now need to go two weeks without drinking a coke, but if you tell yourself you will drink a coke in two weeks, you are almost guaranteed to relapse, and consume even more coke. The risk in escaping from jail is the guards aren't friendly, but the dangers of staying are worth the risk. By now, if you've tried things like boiling mint leaves in water, and refrigerating it with some sugar, or some water flavoring (not toxic or undigested, indigestible "vitamin" flavoring, or aspartame leaving plenty of good options) you will have the hate for toxic spill in a can and the love for something else that will give you the strength to say "I never want to drink that poison again". Follow through. Do not talk to people about it, because they will be incapable of understanding how hard it is for you, and responses like "good", "so what?", or anything like that will convince you that you are having a hard time because you are weak, which will make you weak, and will make fighting the addiction hard, commonly leading to relapse.
Prologue: Do not tell people until the 2 week mark hits that you quit, or one of a million bad things would happen, either in the way you act, or what people will say to you. After two weeks, you will forget how hard it was for you, and will be able to communicate about it with other people and get responses that won't make you [some detrimental emotion]. If you decide to buy a six pack of coke to drink by yourself, you will probably relapse, and therefore, only ever have one coke, which is what most people do.
Now back to the beginning. Is Mr. Torah scholar techie genius slave to a little can? That's really what beats you? Don't you want to be able to enjoy luxuries, instead of being forced to use them like a slave? Surely, you're hiding your strength and will-power to overcome this because you see it as a crutch, a replacement for other desires, when in fact it is a guillotine, which is taking your other leg bit by bit. The sugar will make you hyper, and heighten your desire for other things, so though the Rabbis say food is good for replacing lack, that counteracts. At least get addicted to brussel sprouts, smoked salmon or asparagus for that. You will have an extreme lack, will be full of energy, and further blessed with less fast-acting calorie intake. That is workout gold. Use that energy instead of fighting the pain to work-out, and a lot, using the same but opposite principle of "start with the least you can do, do it like clockwork every single day (shabbat is the only acceptable excuse, and you should not cheat yourself on Sunday) and increase/decrease it by the least you can increase/" it by every week, and you'll be thankful for the increase/decrease at the beginning of every week, and want more at the end. Do not stop 2 cans of coke on thursday. As much as it is a disciple to work-out every day, it is a discipline to not do too much. If you do more than you planned, you will most likely be proud of yourself, feel there is no risk of relapsing, do less work towards your goal, and relapse. Do not decrease your coke consumption by more than you planned at the beginning of the week, and do not increase your exercise by more than you planned at the beginning of the week. Follow these steps and the procedure will be physically painless (though mentally taxing), and you will be healthy and sexy, and will be able to find some nice Jewish tail (G-d willing) that will make quitting coke one of the best things you have ever done for yourself.
Any kinks in the workout schedule or painless addiction suppression master-plans, you just let me know. This is down to a science now, but I'm writing all this from memory at 2:30. Gonna so miss planning out stuff, G-d help me.
-
LKZ,
Thanks.... I have tried slowly decreasing the amount I drink. I did this for three weeks when a 12 pack lasted an entire week... I don't remember what happened but somehow I lost discipline and slipped back to drinking again.
I know I must try again. The brain is recognizing the danger but the animal soul is still holding the upper hand.
I will re-read what you wrote as there is a lot of information in there. I believe you are correct about 'processed sugars'...
But this video is what 60 minutes revealed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n29ZIJ-jQA
-
LKZ,
Thanks.... I have tried slowly decreasing the amount I drink. I did this for three weeks when a 12 pack lasted an entire week... I don't remember what happened but somehow I lost discipline and slipped back to drinking again.
I know I must try again. The brain is recognizing the danger but the animal soul is still holding the upper hand.
I will re-read what you wrote as there is a lot of information in there. I believe you are correct about 'processed sugars'...
But this video is what 60 minutes revealed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n29ZIJ-jQA
The escape from prison parable I gave explains it. To further it, when you're halfway out of jail and you figure you did so well now that you can walk, you're going to get caught and put back. By the fact that you're telling me that story with an undertone that this was a tough-to-do accomplishment (though I am empathetic and understand that it was hard) when I or others could not possibly have an appreciation for how tough that is, (and since most people don't do it, they won't see what's special about you doing less) indicates that the fox got you on a pride trip, and you can test and see if you currently feel offended that I am not gratifying your need to be recognized for this accomplishment, or denigrating all your hard work, which of course is a negative emotion that is the opposite of pride, and to explain that point further (intro in my painless addiction suppression master plan) both those are used to sink you, the pride weakens your resolve, because you figure big coke withholding you doesn't need to work so hard to beat whatever he wants to beat, and then turns you to his side when people don't rejoice and praise you for your work (which would only feed the pride trip, as much as you want it- you don't) and it starts with "well it doesn't even matter to them" (pride has no option to inflate here, and has begun to convince you to give up a struggle which does not grow it), continues with "no one will notice if I do it" (pride is telling you that only you really care about it (it pretends it's you), to be expected since it doesn't exist and you created it, and this is serving to cut off other people who you convinced yourself you could rely on for support, and feel isolated and helpless). Now that you have your resolve weakened and feel all alone, who oh who will pride offer as comfort? Now you drink the cokes, pride intact, which it will have convinced you doesn't matter to you/others, or is a mitzvah now (either in itself or as a replacement for every worse thing you would use as an excuse to need something to do instead), and though the set package size for many people keeps addictions from things like this from increasing all the time, it is possible that you increased your dosage.
Another pride indication is talking about animal and divine souls in that context. I'm going to loose it if you say I'm comparing you to Xtians, but that's how they behaved when I was with them, I've watched a guy tell a girl who had the kindness to let him stay a night that he stared at her at night and the "devil" was convincing him to do something bad, but big him withstood big devil, and other examples of them blaming the "devil" for their misdeeds abound. This is a "religiously" justified pride trip, where whether you do good or bad, you're perfect, but if you do good, why you're the biggest hero for beating the devil. Similar situation here; it's your brain, your toy, you use it and put in it what you please and how you please it. Many Rabbis have offered many opinions to what souls people have, but right now is not Chassidus class, and disassociating yourself from your decisions and blame-gaming won't help you, your pride is just saying "there's nothing wrong with me doing what I want because there's nothing wrong with me", and "there's with me, and I only do what I do because of things that aren't me that are in me".
Worse than the pride that will crush you is the statement "I know I must try again". Translated from pride language, this means, "1. I don't want to try again, 2. I'm not planning on it, 3. I don't know if I can do it, 4. I already tried last time so that's a big accomplishment and I don't actually need to set out to do it to feel accomplished, 5. everyone keeps telling me that I have to do it, so stop repeating it, 6. I know and I'll get to it if and when I'm good and ready, 7. this is something I have to do for my health/others, not something I want to do, 8. I see the logical benefit of quitting, but I want to do what feels good instead of what I know is good for now, but I know that doing it won't last, so when I have no choice I'll do it, 9. If I quit, I won't get the recognition I'll get while quitting (which you still won't, or at least learn why to hope you won't) if I quit, at most little congratulatory remarks instead of people putting themselves in my shoes and making me feel important, so I can give this a shot, and what I want is not to quit, but to grow as an ego, 10. When I try I assume I'll fail same as last time because it's hard.
To summarize all that analysis, the first thing in the master plan, your desire to quit, isn't there, or it lives only in your mind and you can't convince your heart, and therefore you have no chance of succeeding whatsoever. First you have to want to quit now because it's going to be good for you and your life. If you don't have that, the cans you take while cutting down won't just be the thing that makes your craving go away, you're going to sit there and call it a healthy drink and enjoy it and say "you like it", which gives you almost no chance of winning your heart over to your side (stronger emotional reasons for quitting, same as you have stronger logical reasons for quitting than continuing), and are likely to relapse and increase your dosage, now that you're doing something you like as a way to wash away the suffering of trying to stop it, the deadliest combination against my master-plan.
This is not a silly game. Whenever you drink a pepsi (and don't be like "oh it's bad it's bad" like ladies with cigarettes and fat food in their mouths, because that's a one-way ticket to melanoma island), as much as your tongue will enjoy the taste of the liquid, and it will fill you for ~30 seconds, and it feels good to consume foodish things, you must tell yourself that the thing you're enjoying, you're only enjoying it as part of a strict schedule to quit having to drink cokes all the time, and you are aware that the thing you're consuming is toxic waste.
What goes on in your head is not irrelevant. If you do not decide what happens up there, Mr. Pride the foxy puff of hot air will do that for you.
Of course I'm correct about processed "sugars". I prefer saying "superheated into black chemical sludge and then extracts get bleached", but I guess Americans are all about their marketing presentations, so we can use the more pretty word if you like.
I eat raw organic non-processed sugar (btw, brown "sugar" is white "sugar" with molasses (molasses is sugar cane cooked once) making it bleached extracts of black chemical sludge from superheated sugar that are re-darkened with molasses, and there are some nutrients in molasses, so that's the ONLY thing that makes it "better" for you, though it is no less detrimental) it comes in a nice granulated formula, and fine, it's 3x the cost of chemical sludge crumbs, but it actually tastes like food, and choosing white "sugar" or brown or any other color of "sugar" over it is like agreeing to pay $5 for a pizza that's pure charred ash instead of $15 for a real one.
You're the only person on this forum I trust to give personal plans to, since you're the only one who didn't misinterpret everything or attack me when I put out advice, so know every word is written with the utmost respect, and anything you see as derogatory towards your person in any way is not what it is. Hope all this helps, be sure to say things like this, these are the last couple times I get to do psychoanalysis.
Now I'm thinking of another plan, which planning mostly involved the problems that would arise, but what it would be good for is studying in detail not the minimum but optimum food types and nutrients a person needs, organizing to have services across the country where they prepare perfect meals (varying foods respecting the consumption guidelines as close as necessary), illegalizing the garbage corporations sell so that they can store food somewhere 100 years waiting to sell and compete with someone who has a kitchen and actual food), and there was a bunch of other stuff, a connecting plan is that the culinary research institute necessary for the project will increase the quality of Israeli gastronomie, and provide new jobs, perfect for tourists and a wealthy class. Doesn't matter because I started ripping up all my plans. If only now I could get them out of my head, where I have to go now would be less torturous. blah blah blah that's all I can do and wait.
-
Would you drink a 12-pack if it were much more expensive?
I hope sh*t like soda drinks stay forever allot more expensive in Israel.
-
Here, let me fix that for you
... the companies are selling {tasty} products which they know are unhealthy {because} they know people will buy them.
Now who is at fault, really? People need to take responsibility for their unhealthy habits. If they stop buying and eating crap, then companies will sell healthier foods that people want to buy. They will sell whatever people demand to eat and are willing to buy. That, in fact, explains the explosion of the Organic industry. And why the Whole Foods business model has erupted onto the scene as one of the greatest growth stories of the past decade. Have you ignored that? Chosen to abstain from participating? You are free to partake in that fad and purchase healthier foods.
Isn't it the fault of the people who buy junk and stuff it down their gullets?
These products do not kill people immediately but they contribute to an unhealthy society. Currently I am not exposed to much marketing of these products as I don't watch TV or cable anymore (gave it up 10 years ago).
No one is forcing anyone to buy or eat these things even if they are watching tv.
But the bad habits of my youth have had a detrimental effect on my health, as it has a good number of American citizens, because various scientific findings were buried by the sugar industry.
You talk about the powerful reach of the sugar industry. How do you know that nothing they say is true? Aren't you aware that there is a field of artificial sweeteners which publishes attacks on sugar so it can pimp its own replacement products and whose own bad qualities they try to gloss over? So why should we trust them?
There are many papers published on the effects of sugar on the diet and health of people and animals. You can try to counteract these claims with your own studies proving contrary points (or perhaps point out the flaws in the studies and design better ones which then render the politicized stuff nonsense, which sometimes happens), but you cannot "bury" it. It's all out there and known.
The problem of obesity is not due to sugar, it's due to lack of self-control and people stuffing junk in their gullets. It's a CALORIE problem. All food gets converted to sugar. The more crap that (such as soda) is eaten which has no other redeeming value or nutrient content to fall back on, the worse it will be, but really all the food we eat more or less gets converted to sugar (glucose). Glucose is the primary source of energy used by our cells. It can't be all that bad. It's the preferred energy source of human cells. It's the AMOUNT one intakes which matters, and that requires self-control.
So I don't think it is something to be so flippant with. In the 60s-80s the TV advertising was pushing sugary products like they did cigarettes.
This comparison is a red herring. Cigarettes cause deadly cancers no matter how moderated one's intake or usage. They are loaded with known carcinogens and addictive nicotine. Sugar is not in and of itself hazardous to one's health! Science is advanced enough that we know what sugar does. We know what cigarettes do. It took time for the reality of cigarettes to become clear. Comparing to the 1960's is like referencing the stone age and its construction of wheels to today's tires.
Corporations should have moral values and not attempt to mislead the people concerning the potential dangers of the products. Similarly in drug advertisements when the announcer reads the potential side effects very quickly so that nobody can understand what he is saying.
You can't let a day go by without taking a potshot at the drug companies (those evil companies which invent all the life-saving medicines people rely on and certainly wouldn't opt out on if their own hide was on the line). Drug advertisements usually say "Ask your doctor about ..." Why is that misleading? The doctor will explain all the risks, that is his job. The potential side effect list they read out during the commercial is mandated by the federal govt for any advertisement, so they have to list every single thing, even if extremely unlikely to get from the drug. That is part of the guidelines. Where do you get it from that no one can understand? It's usually perfectly clear and makes me question why anyone would want to ask their doctor about it given the long list. But ALL of the side effect information is very clearly labeled on the drug packaging, as mandated by law and which a person obviously should read, and any responsible doctor would also discuss this with his patient before prescribing. There is nothing misleading about these commercials. In fact I would argue that the daunting list of a million side effects at the end of the commercial (which are said in perfectly audible English or else they would not meet the federal guidelines, the commercials would be illegal, and the FDA would immediately fine the company and take the ads off the air, so I don't know where you got the lie from that people can't comprehend what's being said) are probably counterproductive and I think it's bad marketing strategy to even have those commercials. Because people hear a lot of crazy side effects and will be turned off to the benefits of the drug.
Where you get the idea that the side effects are read so fast that it sounds like "happiness and full prosperity" to cover up drug risks, I do not know, but maybe in the weed fields of southern california?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0KFkQNFxsk
At least in this video they slowly explained the side effects, and it is not an example of what I was trying to say in the above paragraph.
LOL, that's because your above paragraph was a lie. They always say it in clear english or else the feds would immediately shut them down and probably start raiding their facilities lol
-
Well I would not put it that way... Smoking will kill you, Alcohol will ultimately kill you, Sugar will kill you, but MJ has medicinal properties which may be advantageous. So on a level of danger I would agree that the first two are more dangerous than the third.
You keep claiming MJ has medicinal properties, yet there are no studies proving that. The evil Drug Companies, if they tried to make statements like that about one of their drug candidates which has not been tested and approved by the FDA, would see executives landing in jail. It would be considered "unethical behavior" for a drug company to make unfounded statements like that. So you hate them and consider them evil and unethical, yet you freely engage in behavior that if any of them would do, would land them immediately in jail (which is one of the reasons why they don't do it - they have to uphold ethics or else go to jail). You are committing a type of fraud with these statements. How do you justify that? How do you justify the blatant double-standard you hold against drug companies when they ARE behaving, and you are not?
-
2. White "sugar" is not sugar, it had some sugar in it, and it is a carcinogenic substance
Bullcrap.
If there was any science whatsoever, even a hint of it, to suggest that table sugar was carcinogenic, Obama's EPA would have banned it already - even if it required 10000 ppm to be carcinogenic, Obama's EPA would ban 10 ppm. This is just liberal gobbledy gook you are talking because it's "in" to be anti-food and anti-corporation and anti-everything, and everyone is trying to poison us (except the federal govt of course)
-
:clap:
Bullcrap.
If there was any science whatsoever, even a hint of it, to suggest that table sugar was carcinogenic, Obama's EPA would have banned it already - even if it required 10000 ppm to be carcinogenic, Obama's EPA would ban 10 ppm. This is just liberal gobbledy gook you are talking because it's "in" to be anti-food and anti-corporation and anti-everything, and everyone is trying to poison us (except the federal govt of course)
-
Well I would not put it that way... Smoking will kill you, Alcohol will ultimately kill you, Sugar will kill you, but MJ has medicinal properties which may be advantageous. So on a level of danger I would agree that the first two are more dangerous than the third.
Muman, do you think smoking marijuana had any impact on your problem with Cocaine?
I think if you even cut your soda intake by half you would feel better.
Thinking of totally stopping can be overwhelming. I had a friend who watered down her soda. Slowly, you can cut down to a normal amount. The amount you drink is definitely detrimental to your health. I think soda occasionally is perfectly fine. (Don't tell Michelle.)
-
What is Grenadine? Sugars, food dye and chemicals in a bottle. Or if high end... fruit juice and sugar.
Is it the methadone of soda? A more acceptable addiction.
Grenadine = Soda :::D
How about we take some responsibility for our own actions?
Who cares what the 'evil' corporations want? If you know something is bad for you...don't indulge. That might solve the problem by putting them out of business. Or indulge and quit whining about it.
That isn't meant just for Muman. It is meant for society in general.
Muman, have you ever tried (idk the word in English) eau de grenadine?(http://www.spiritsoffrance.com.au/494-thickbox/vedrenne-sirop-de-grenadine-0-700ml.jpg)
-
5. Your body converts food into sugar for use and fat for storage. It does not convert it to the poison Americans are convinced is sugar, just as your sweat does not contain the poison Americans believe is salt.
Lol. Human sweat contains urea, which is a poison routinely secreted from the body by the kidneys... and by sweating.
Table salt is not a poison, Mr. Bloomberg.
-
Well I would not put it that way... Smoking will kill you, Alcohol will ultimately kill you, Sugar will kill you, but MJ has medicinal properties which may be advantageous. So on a level of danger I would agree that the first two are more dangerous than the third.
Yes, it would be much better that all kids smoke weed than eat candy and fruit. :laugh:
-
Here, let me fix that for you
Now who is at fault, really? People need to take responsibility for their unhealthy habits. If they stop buying and eating crap, then companies will sell healthier foods that people want to buy. They will sell whatever people demand to eat and are willing to buy. That, in fact, explains the explosion of the Organic industry. And why the Whole Foods business model has erupted onto the scene as one of the greatest growth stories of the past decade. Have you ignored that? Chosen to abstain from participating? You are free to partake in that fad and purchase healthier foods.
Isn't it the fault of the people who buy junk and stuff it down their gullets?
No one is forcing anyone to buy or eat these things even if they are watching tv.
You talk about the powerful reach of the sugar industry. How do you know that nothing they say is true? Aren't you aware that there is a field of artificial sweeteners which publishes attacks on sugar so it can pimp its own replacement products and whose own bad qualities they try to gloss over? So why should we trust them?
There are many papers published on the effects of sugar on the diet and health of people and animals. You can try to counteract these claims with your own studies proving contrary points (or perhaps point out the flaws in the studies and design better ones which then render the politicized stuff nonsense, which sometimes happens), but you cannot "bury" it. It's all out there and known.
The problem of obesity is not due to sugar, it's due to lack of self-control and people stuffing junk in their gullets. It's a CALORIE problem. All food gets converted to sugar. The more crap that (such as soda) is eaten which has no other redeeming value or nutrient content to fall back on, the worse it will be, but really all the food we eat more or less gets converted to sugar (glucose). Glucose is the primary source of energy used by our cells. It can't be all that bad. It's the preferred energy source of human cells. It's the AMOUNT one intakes which matters, and that requires self-control.
This comparison is a red herring. Cigarettes cause deadly cancers no matter how moderated one's intake or usage. They are loaded with known carcinogens and addictive nicotine. Sugar is not in and of itself hazardous to one's health! Science is advanced enough that we know what sugar does. We know what cigarettes do. It took time for the reality of cigarettes to become clear. Comparing to the 1960's is like referencing the stone age and its construction of wheels to today's tires.
You can't let a day go by without taking a potshot at the drug companies (those evil companies which invent all the life-saving medicines people rely on and certainly wouldn't opt out on if their own hide was on the line). Drug advertisements usually say "Ask your doctor about ..." Why is that misleading? The doctor will explain all the risks, that is his job. The potential side effect list they read out during the commercial is mandated by the federal govt for any advertisement, so they have to list every single thing, even if extremely unlikely to get from the drug. That is part of the guidelines. Where do you get it from that no one can understand? It's usually perfectly clear and makes me question why anyone would want to ask their doctor about it given the long list. But ALL of the side effect information is very clearly labeled on the drug packaging, as mandated by law and which a person obviously should read, and any responsible doctor would also discuss this with his patient before prescribing. There is nothing misleading about these commercials. In fact I would argue that the daunting list of a million side effects at the end of the commercial (which are said in perfectly audible English or else they would not meet the federal guidelines, the commercials would be illegal, and the FDA would immediately fine the company and take the ads off the air, so I don't know where you got the lie from that people can't comprehend what's being said) are probably counterproductive and I think it's bad marketing strategy to even have those commercials. Because people hear a lot of crazy side effects and will be turned off to the benefits of the drug.
Where you get the idea that the side effects are read so fast that it sounds like "happiness and full prosperity" to cover up drug risks, I do not know, but maybe in the weed fields of southern california?
LOL, that's because your above paragraph was a lie. They always say it in clear english or else the feds would immediately shut them down and probably start raiding their facilities lol
So someone gets left in front of the t.v. since 3 (good portion of your country) to get brainwashed by the t.v., gets the products he's convinced about, because of exceptional advertising, that has also probably worked well enough to reduce his attention span to nothing (fun ads to make), and so when he goes to the store, the farmer selling an apple is selling it for even more than his "sugar" treats, and can't possibly compete with genius advertisers. The kid becomes a man and lives a simple life, doesn't get to hear about all the negative effects of these things, and is a fatty with terrible health, even though he works.
I could illustrate the point with less extreme examples; a man who generally eats food from time to time likes a "sugar" treat, and this weakens his heart and decreases his libido by 5%.
In the pro-traitor corporation world of KWRBT, these people are to blame for their own poor decisions. They should have known better. How could they have? They had a t.v. to tell them the stuff was great, they have access to it on every corner store, they see everyone else doing it, and the flashy packaging ensures that, and it's at the point when if you tell someone that the coke can they're drinking is 100 kinds of toxic and bad for you, and they haven't actually studied it, they'll look at you like a crazy maniac, because how could it be bad? You can't cut off someone's feet and look down on them because they're not running.
Many of the replacement sweeteners are owned by other traitor corporations, and are frequently toxic waste. The only one I trust is Stevia.
I have no idea what you mean about studies about the effect of sugar, but I'm assuming you're saying it is proven good in those studies. The first thing I said was the sugar is good and has many important nutrients. White "sugar" is not sugar, it is carcinogenic waste, and is only negative beyond the 30 second energy rush, which in itself is far more negative than positive.
"It's a CALORIE problem." In France, we eat cheese, butter, wine and all things fat, and a lot, and everyone is skinny. The difference between that and food in the States is that food there is food and food in America is extracted repasted-together food-extract held together and flavored with toxic waste. It's not because you eat too much toxic potion that you're fat. Many poor people don't eat comparatively more than the French, and are rotund and hideous. It's because your body does not properly digest or store the mutilated "fats" and "sugars" that are in the poison you call food.
I already said before that foooooood GEEEEETS CONNNNNVERTTTTTEED TO SUUUUGARRRR, NOOOOOOT F-INNNNNG WHIIIITTTTE F-INNNNG "SUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGAAAAARRR". Got that? Repeat it to yourself a hundred [censored] times so I don't have to repeat it again.
White "Sugar" causes cancer. Every single doctor in the world but corporate population control scientists and ignoramuses agree http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=384385&rel_no=1
As for your comment to Muman, every drug ad I've seen on t.v. plays the side effects while two people walk gaily down the beach, and the world champion auctioneer runs though a list of horrible effects worse than the original problem faster than a rapper. Some drugs are necessary. However, they want more money, so some drugs are withheld when they should be released, some are made worse to increase dosage, or to allow them to prescribe other drugs for the side effects. I'm angry right now because you made me repeat myself, so I'm not responding to the rest, but unless you have no option other than getting a drug, most medical problems can be solved with natural methods and herbal remedies, and naturopathy and herbology offers solutions 1/10th the price and without side effects as an alternative to drugs which do a worse job at the same thing, and that is an example of how drug companies are detrimental no society. Nothing that is 100% detrimental survives, it's really pathetic to see people supposed to know politics in a so-called movement using logical fallacy and defending such people with it. The drug companies do good and bad, but nothing short of right is right and what's not right is wrong, and with a little moral code and a side of enforcement, they could be doing 10x the good and 10x less the bad for the world.
Lol. Human sweat contains urea, which is a poison routinely secreted from the body by the kidneys... and by sweating.
Table salt is not a poison, Mr. Bloomberg.
Urea/uric acid is not a poison, it has many beneficial properties, and in some cultures it is turned into a fungus medication, a skin cream, and many other things. However, poisons are always coming into your body, and your body will expell them with the urea. That is why the pee will kill you if you drink your pee three times in a row, it's not the urea.
Also, table salt is a poison http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/nutrition/table-salt no one should eat it.
Lol Americans pump yourself up with drugs, junk "food", white "sugar" and table "salt". Fake people in a fake society should eat fake food.
Yes, it would be much better that all kids smoke weed than eat candy and fruit. :laugh:
That's really all any of you have, straw men arguments, logical fallacies, and school yard insults.
Biggest waste being here.
-
http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/sugar-is-toxic-to-mice-in-safe-doses/
Aug. 13, 2013 – When mice ate a diet of 25 percent extra sugar – the mouse equivalent of a healthy human diet plus three cans of soda daily – females died at twice the normal rate and males were a quarter less likely to hold territory and reproduce, according to a toxicity test developed at the University of Utah.
“Our results provide evidence that added sugar consumed at concentrations currently considered safe exerts dramatic adverse impacts on mammalian health,” the researchers say in a study set for online publication Tuesday, Aug. 13 in the journal Nature Communications.
“This demonstrates the adverse effects of added sugars at human-relevant levels,” says University of Utah biology professor Wayne Potts, the study’s senior author. He says previous studies using other tests fed mice large doses of sugar disproportionate to the amount people consume in sweetened beverages, baked goods and candy.
“I have reduced refined sugar intake and encouraged my family to do the same,” he adds, noting that the new test showed that the 25 percent “added-sugar” diet – 12.5 percent dextrose (the industrial name for glucose) and 12.5 percent fructose – was just as harmful to the health of mice as being the inbred offspring of first cousins.
Even though the mice didn’t become obese and showed few metabolic symptoms, the sensitive test showed “they died more often and tended to have fewer babies,” says the study’s first author, James Ruff, who recently earned his Ph.D. at the University of Utah. “We have shown that levels of sugar that people typically consume – and that are considered safe by regulatory agencies – impair the health of mice.”
.
.
.
Human-made toxic substances in the environment potentially affect all of us, and more are continually discovered, Potts says.
“You have to ask why we didn’t discover them 20 years ago,” he adds. “The answer is that until now, we haven’t had a functional, broad and sensitive test to screen the potential toxic substances that are being released into the environment or in our drugs or our food supply.”
Potts and Ruff conducted the study with University of Utah biology lab manager Linda Morrison and undergraduates Amanda Suchy, Sara Hugentobler, Mirtha Sosa and Bradley Schwartz, and with researchers Sin Gieng and Mark Shigenaga of Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute in California.
http://www.livescience.com/18244-sugar-toxic-regulations.html
A spoonful of sugar might make the medicine go down. But it also makes blood pressure and cholesterol go up, along with your risk for liver failure, obesity, heart disease and diabetes.
Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic to the human body that they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide, according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).
The researchers propose regulations such as taxing all foods and drinks that include added sugar, banning sales in or near schools and placing age limits on purchases.
Although the commentary might seem straight out of the Journal of Ideas That Will Never Fly, the researchers cite numerous studies and statistics to make their case that added sugar — or, more specifically, sucrose, an even mix of glucose and fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and in table sugar made from sugar cane and sugar beets — has been as detrimental to society as alcohol and tobacco.
.
.
.
-
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/sugar-problem/refined-sugar-the-sweetest-poison-of-all
SUGAR: HARMFUL TO HUMANS AND ANIMALS
Shipwrecked sailors who ate and drank nothing but sugar and rum for nine days surely went through some of this trauma; the tales they had to tell created a big public relations problem for the sugar pushers. This incident occurred when a vessel carrying a cargo of sugar was shipwrecked in 1793. The five surviving sailors were finally rescued after being marooned for nine days. They were in a wasted condition due to starvation, having consumed nothing but sugar and rum. The eminent French physiologist F. Magendie was inspired by that incident to conduct a series of experiments with animals, the results of which he published in 1816. In the experiments, he fed dogs a diet of sugar or olive oil and water. All the dogs wasted and died.3
The shipwrecked sailors and the French physiologist's experimental dogs proved the same point. As a steady diet, sugar is worse than nothing. Plain water can keep you alive for quite some time. Sugar and water can kill you. Humans [and animals] are "unable to subsist on a diet of sugar".4 The dead dogs in Professor Magendie's laboratory alerted the sugar industry to the hazards of free scientific inquiry. From that day to this, the sugar industry has invested millions of dollars in behind-the-scenes, subsidized science. The best scientific names that money could buy have been hired, in the hope that they could one day come up with something at least pseudoscientific in the way of glad tidings about sugar.
It has been proved, however, that (1) sugar is a major factor in dental decay; (2) sugar in a person's diet does cause overweight; (3) removal of sugar from diets has cured symptoms of crippling, worldwide diseases such as diabetes, cancer and heart illnesses. Sir Frederick Banting, the codiscoverer of insulin, noticed in 1929 in Panama that, among sugar plantation owners who ate large amounts of their refined stuff, diabetes was common. Among native cane-cutters, who only got to chew the raw cane, he saw no diabetes. However, the story of the public relations attempts on the part of the sugar manufacturers began in Britain in 1808 when the Committee of West India reported to the House of Commons that a prize of twenty-five guineas had been offered to anyone who could come up with the most "satisfactory" experiments to prove that unrefined sugar was good for feeding and fattening oxen, cows, hogs and sheep.5
Food for animals is often seasonal, always expensive. Sugar, by then, was dirt cheap. People weren't eating it fast enough. Naturally, the attempt to feed livestock with sugar and molasses in England in 1808 was a disaster. When the Committee on West India made its fourth report to the House of Commons, one Member of Parliament, John Curwin, reported that he had tried to feed sugar and molasses to calves without success. He suggested that perhaps someone should try again by sneaking sugar and molasses into skimmed milk. Had anything come of that, you can be sure the West Indian sugar merchants would have spread the news around the world. After this singular lack of success in pushing sugar in cow pastures, the West Indian sugar merchants gave up.
With undaunted zeal for increasing the market demand for the most important agricultural product of the West Indies, the Committee of West India was reduced to a tactic that has served the sugar pushers for almost 200 years: irrelevant and transparently silly testimonials from faraway, inaccessible people with some kind of "scientific" credentials. While preparing his epochal volume, A History of Nutrition, published in 1957, Professor E. V. McCollum (Johns Hopkins university), sometimes called America's foremost nutritionist and certainly a pioneer in the field, reviewed approximately 200,000 published scientific papers, recording experiments with food, their properties, their utilization and their effects on animals and men. The material covered the period from the mid-18th century to 1940. From this great repository of scientific inquiry, McCollum selected those experiments which he regarded as significant "to relate the story of progress in discovering human error in this segment of science [of nutrition]".
Professor McCollum failed to record a single controlled scientific experiment with sugar between 1816 and 1940. unhappily, we must remind ourselves that scientists today, and always, accomplish little without a sponsor. The protocols of modern science have compounded the costs of scientific inquiry. We have no right to be surprised when we read the introduction to McCollum's A History of Nutrition and find that "The author and publishers are indebted to The Nutrition Foundation, Inc., for a grant provided to meet a portion of the cost of publication of this book". What, you might ask, is The Nutrition Foundation, Inc.? The author and the publishers don't tell you. It happens to be a front organization for the leading sugar-pushing conglomerates in the food business, including the American Sugar Refining Company, Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Curtis Candy Co., General Foods, General Mills, Nestlé Co., Pet Milk Co. and Sunshine Biscuits-about 45 such companies in all. Perhaps the most significant thing about McCollum's 1957 history was what he left out: a monumental earlier work described by an eminent Harvard professor as "one of those epochal pieces of research which makes every other investigator desirous of kicking himself because he never thought of doing the same thing".
In the 1930s, a research dentist from Cleveland, Ohio, Dr. Weston A. Price, traveled all over the world-from the lands of the Eskimos to the South Sea Islands, from Africa to New Zealand. His Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects,6 which is illustrated with hundreds of photographs, was first published in 1939. Dr. Price took the whole world as his laboratory. His devastating conclusion, recorded in horrifying detail in area after area, was simple. People who live under so-called backward primitive conditions had excellent teeth and wonderful general health. They ate natural, unrefined food from their own locale. As soon as refined, sugared foods were imported as a result of contact with "civilization," physical degeneration began in a way that was definitely observable within a single generation. Any credibility the sugar pushers have is based on our ignorance of works like that of Dr. Price.
Sugar manufacturers keep trying, hoping and contributing generous research grants to colleges and universities; but the research laboratories never come up with anything solid the manufacturers can use. Invariably, the research results are bad news. "Let us go to the ignorant savage, consider his way of eating and be wise," Harvard professor Ernest Hooten said in Apes, Men, and Morons.7 "Let us cease pretending that toothbrushes and toothpaste are any more important than shoe brushes and shoe polish. It is store food that has given us store teeth." When the researchers bite the hands that feed them, and the news gets out, it's embarrassing all around. In 1958, Time magazine reported that a Harvard biochemist and his assistants had worked with myriads of mice for more than ten years, bankrolled by the Sugar Research Foundation, Inc. to the tune of $57,000, to find out how sugar causes dental cavities and how to prevent this. It took them ten years to discover that there was no way to prevent sugar causing dental decay. When the researchers reported their findings in the Dental Association Journal, their source of money dried up. The Sugar Research Foundation withdrew its support. The more that the scientists disappointed them, the more the sugar pushers had to rely on the ad men.
-
Muman, are there any terminal illnesses that the heavenly herb can't cure?
-
Muman, are there any terminal illnesses that the heavenly herb can't cure?
Wrong thread... Here we are talking about the health risks of sugar.
And all I have suggested concerning MJ is there appear to be cancer fighting properties of THC. This is a fact and cancer doctors are looking into this because it appears promising.
-
Wrong thread... Here we are talking about the health risks of sugar.
And all I have suggested concerning MJ is there appear to be cancer fighting properties of THC. This is a fact and cancer doctors are looking into this because it appears promising.
Cancer resisting would be more accurate, as based on my research, it prevents spread and growth, and acts basically as an inhibitor like tea-tree oil on athlete's foot, but not a cure.
-
Reporting this post. You are already on thin ice, I can tell you that much.
-
Reporting this post. You are already on thin ice, I can tell you that much.
Go ahead. I don't know what is wrong with what has been posted... Except you want to keep on discussing pot (for which another thread already exists) while we are trying to expose the health problems with sugar.
I really don't know what is wrong with you LSDBR.. You always seek to create division.
-
Go ahead. I don't know what is wrong with what has been posted... Except you want to keep on discussing pot (for which another thread already exists) while we are trying to expose the health problems with sugar.
I really don't know what is wrong with you LSDBR.. You always seek to create division.
I really don't think he is talking to you... I think he might be taking about the rib snapper. ...
-
I really don't think he is talking to you... I think he might be taking about the rib snapper. ...
I suspect he wasn't addressing me...
-
While I find that post absolutely hilarious, I don't think it looks very good for us, or helps the movement.
-
While I find that post absolutely hilarious, I don't think it looks very good for us, or helps the movement.
I'm not supposed to report personal attacks?
-
I'm not supposed to report personal attacks?
No no no! I was purely talking about his post! Even the one yelling at KWRBT.
-
The fact of the matter is that people need to read food labels. Anything which lists sugar and/or high fructose corn syrup as one of the first three or four ingredients should be a no no. And why even bother with most packaged foods? The only things I would buy packaged are low fat plain yogurt and Quaker oats (not the instant kind).
Also, we know that table sugar is no good for anyone. So there's no reason for any of us to buy anything labeled "drink" or "beverage" which means the stuff has lots of sugar. As for fruit juices, the ideal is to eat your fruits rather than drinking them. But if you have to have fruit juice, make sure there's no sugar added, and dilute it with some water.
Finally, I think the best thing to do is not to watch TV. There's not much that 's decent on the air, and you don't want to sit for so long either. Forget about snacking while watching TV as well.
-
Good ideas Lisa... But the problem is many of us grew up watching the media pushing these sweet treats... Some of us have habits of eating cookies, chips, and candy... It is hard to go from enjoying these 'goodies' (as my mom calls them) to cutting them out of our diets.
I just hope that the truth concerning the health risks are made available to the public. Part of the reason I posted this thread is to demonstrate that some industry players do not always play fair (they may fund bogus studies, attempt to sink studies which say things they don't want the public to know, etc.) Both the sugar industry and the tobacco industry have engaged in these practices.
-
Lol
Urea is a waste product whicch is toxic to your body - that is why your kidneys filter it and it gets excreted in urine and sweat - so that it does not remain in the body. If it would acccumulate in the body, I would be poisonous. That is why it is important to have functioning kidney(s).
Table sugar does not "accumulate" in the body, it is broken down as foodstuff then used for energy, used for biochemical reactions, stored as glycogen in the liver, or as fat - basically converted by the body to whatever it needs.
Eaten in normal amounts both it and table salt are NOT carcinogenic or poisonous. That is leftwing nonsense spread by leftists who are afraid of the boogeyman and of cooties in our food.
-
Lol
Urea is a waste product whicch is toxic to your body - that is why your kidneys filter it and it gets excreted in urine and sweat - so that it does not remain in the body. If it would acccumulate in the body, I would be poisonous. That is why it is important to have functioning kidney(s).
Table sugar does not "accumulate" in the body, it is broken down as foodstuff then used for energy, used for biochemical reactions, stored as glycogen in the liver, or as fat - basically converted by the body to whatever it needs.
Eaten in normal amounts both it and table salt are NOT carcinogenic or poisonous. That is leftwing nonsense spread by leftists who are afraid of the boogeyman and of cooties in our food.
What he said.
-
Lol
Urea is a waste product whicch is toxic to your body - that is why your kidneys filter it and it gets excreted in urine and sweat - so that it does not remain in the body. If it would acccumulate in the body, I would be poisonous. That is why it is important to have functioning kidney(s).
Table sugar does not "accumulate" in the body, it is broken down as foodstuff then used for energy, used for biochemical reactions, stored as glycogen in the liver, or as fat - basically converted by the body to whatever it needs.
Eaten in normal amounts both it and table salt are NOT carcinogenic or poisonous. That is leftwing nonsense spread by leftists who are afraid of the boogeyman and of cooties in our food.
According to virtually all sources the average American consumes more than 2X the recommended daily allowance of Sugar. I have looked at a variety of studies and most indicate that sugar contributes to many health problems. Also there are studies which confirm that sugar (beyond what a healthy body requires) causes tumor growth (in people with cancer).
Can you provide evidence for your statement 'That is leftwing nonsense spread by leftists who are afraid of the boogeyman and of cooties in our food.'?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22617559
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW:
To summarize recent findings that have examined dietary, genetic and gene-diet interactions that contribute to fat accumulation in the liver during growth and development, with particular focus on contributions relating to dietary carbohydrate and sugar consumption. In addition, this review highlights how some of these contributions to liver fat vary across the population in terms of ethnic-specific effects.
RECENT FINDINGS:
Dietary carbohydrate, and especially sugars contribute to increased liver fat accumulation due to the lipogenic potential of fructose during liver metabolism. In addition, recent genome-wide studies have identified several polymorphisms that contribute to increased liver fat accumulation, with some of these genes relating to dietary carbohydrate and sugar consumption. In particular, the patatin-like phospholipase domain-containing protein 3 (PNPLA3) gene, which is highly prevalent in Hispanics, contributes to excessive liver fat beginning at a young age, especially in the context of high sugar consumption.
SUMMARY:
Dietary sugar contributes to liver fat accumulation, with this being explained by de-novo lipogenesis from fructose in the liver. Certain genetic factors, including PNPLA3, glucokinase regulatory protein and APOC3 contribute to increased liver fat accumulation, with these effects being manifested at an early age. Hispanics in particular are at elevated risk for liver fat accumulation because of the higher frequency of genetic variants such as PNPLA3 and glucokinase regulatory protein as well as an interaction between the PNPLA3 and dietary sugar.
-
The stuff is basically like a narcotic, similar to marijuana or cocaine. Only it's in everything, and less harmful. But it's still harmful. Of course the corporations are pushing it- because it makes them money. Just like Hollyweird is glorifying drugs and other forms of degeneracy- because it lowers moral standards and thus encourages people in a way of behavior that allows cultural decay, and more profits for the perverted filth.
-
Reporting this post. You are already on thin ice, I can tell you that much.
*Shiver*. Shaking in my boots. Let's play a guessing game. On a scale from 1 to I don't give a [censored], try to guess how much I care?
Lol
Urea is a waste product whicch is toxic to your body - that is why your kidneys filter it and it gets excreted in urine and sweat - so that it does not remain in the body. If it would acccumulate in the body, I would be poisonous. That is why it is important to have functioning kidney(s).
Table sugar does not "accumulate" in the body, it is broken down as foodstuff then used for energy, used for biochemical reactions, stored as glycogen in the liver, or as fat - basically converted by the body to whatever it needs.
Eaten in normal amounts both it and table salt are NOT carcinogenic or poisonous. That is leftwing nonsense spread by leftists who are afraid of the boogeyman and of cooties in our food.
If air would accumulate in the body, it would be poisonous. Your body also filters and removes yellow pigment, however, it is not a toxin. "Table "sugar"", by which I assume you mean white sugar a.k.a. toxic waste crumbs. The bleach in toxic waste crumbs accumulates in the body, the little energy in it comes out in a blast in a few minutes, and the rest is- poorly- stored as fat, and I say poorly because like artificial trans-fats the body doesn't store it well, so you end up with fat that is very hard to burn. I posted a link to a medical site, but I assume by the end of explaining it you will have assumed I call doctors Nazis, Ephy will wonder why I'm being mean to unicorns and stinks will say I'm hurting the movement, so this is the best rancher translation I can pull off.
There is no normal amount of toxic waste, it will hurt you less with a speck then with a pound, but it will hurt you guaranteed. In regards to destroying your testosterone production and bodily use thereof, I say that scares me 100x more than cancer, but at any rate left-wing doctors scared of the boogeyman they discovered with the scientific method instead of with the bias a lifetime of brainwashing creats say that it is carcenogenic with scientifically measurable results and evidence, but watch out with medical research, it might have cooties.
Good ideas Lisa... But the problem is many of us grew up watching the media pushing these sweet treats... Some of us have habits of eating cookies, chips, and candy... It is hard to go from enjoying these 'goodies' (as my mom calls them) to cutting them out of our diets.
I just hope that the truth concerning the health risks are made available to the public. Part of the reason I posted this thread is to demonstrate that some industry players do not always play fair (they may fund bogus studies, attempt to sink studies which say things they don't want the public to know, etc.) Both the sugar industry and the tobacco industry have engaged in these practices.
I really have no understanding of how you would really want to go back to eating toxic sludge goodies after awesome food. Have you ever tried spinach in cheese sauce? Barbecued steaks in Dijon mustard a l'ancienne? Homemade lemon sorbet in whiskey? Shwarma with pita, hummus, babaganoush and tahini spread on it with chicken, lettuce, ocra, tomatoes, diced cucumbers and garlic mayo? Organic syrop de grenadine in milk? Even a homemade bread with a bit of raw organic non-processed sugar to make a sweet bread tastes 100x better than any of the cookies or fat cakes they serve anywhere. There's lots of really awesome tasting food that is good for you. Try mixing hemp hearts in some pasta with a couple cheese types and some garlic powder on it. Not only does that processed ex-food extract they sell taste like Chernobyl spring water, it's worse for you. The most confusing thing to me after a nice meal of meat and vegetables is someone not understanding why I don't want to eat their puffy processed fat cake. If you are hungry, eat more food that is actually tasty, not crap. Whoever has been marketing to you people, you absolutely must give me his name so I can beg to learn from him.
Muman, I don't think you get how this works. You can tell the public all you want. I tell people that the stuff in their shampoo is synthetic estrogen (anything with paraben in the word) along with skin toxicants and irritants, and they look at me like I'm from Mars and say "if it was dangerous, the government wouldn't let them sell it". This is not a blanket being held over their eyes, it's a free personalized mask that defines their identity, so they'll protect it to the end. I don't have even the slightest faith of any kind that I will convince anyone here that some of the products they use are bad for them. I only jumped on here because they were attacking you.
For your last paragraph, my terms are population control scientists and corporate marketing studies. However, sugar is very good for you, their whole "recommended amount" is based on it, and they're doing the same thing with salt. Americans consume less salt then they need, especially considering they don't eat any, it's all salt-extract, and in any quantity that is extremely detrimental to health, especially the heart (while actual salt is prescribed by doctors in Europe for heart problems and high blood pressure). Sugar does not hurt you like white sugar, it's perfectly safe, and they're trying to cut down on anything that makes us healthy by turning it into poison and then banning it bit by bit. C'mon, it was on t.v. An intelligent person should assume that there is a lie somewhere in it.
-
Lol
Urea is a waste product whicch is toxic to your body - that is why your kidneys filter it and it gets excreted in urine and sweat - so that it does not remain in the body. If it would acccumulate in the body, I would be poisonous. That is why it is important to have functioning kidney(s).
Table sugar does not "accumulate" in the body, it is broken down as foodstuff then used for energy, used for biochemical reactions, stored as glycogen in the liver, or as fat - basically converted by the body to whatever it needs.
Eaten in normal amounts both it and table salt are NOT carcinogenic or poisonous. That is leftwing nonsense spread by leftists who are afraid of the boogeyman and of cooties in our food.
You are right.
From my experience...not enough salt in a body can cause big problems too. My mom suffered from hyponatremia. What a nightmare. And, I think, the lack of iodized salt in a diet is problematic too. Look how much thyroid disease people suffer with now. Almost everyone I know takes Synthroid. What's with that? Just as a low blood sugar can as easily kill you as a high blood sugar. Probably faster. I think all things in moderation. People should use commonsense about their food intake.
-
You are right.
From my experience...not enough salt in a body can cause big problems too. My mom suffered from hyponatremia. What a nightmare. And, I think, the lack of iodized salt in a diet is problematic too. Look how much thyroid disease people suffer with now. Almost everyone I know takes Synthroid. What's with that? Just as a low blood sugar can as easily kill you as a high blood sugar. Probably faster. I think all things in moderation. People should use commonsense about their food intake.
The irony is that both "right" and "left" are repeating the population control scientists' claims that sugar kills the tummy and salt kills the heart, and neither will say that what's doing the killing is the corporations that own their stations, who don't sell salt or sugar.
Again, there is no moderate amount of carcinogenic toxic sludge crumbs or mutilated food extract. I splurge on salt, and eat it with my half dozen eggs (which you guys even repeated their insane nonsense about), and that's the best thing possible for continued male development, and my heart and cholesterol are perfect, and I barely work out now other than pull-ups.
Food=good, sludge=bad. Too much sugar will make you fatter, OK, and it acidifes the blood which improves the fungus candida's ability to survive, which causes certain types of cancer, but you have to be a real fatty to eat that much. However, the tea spoon of toxic sludge crumbs in your coffee just wreaked havoc on your reproductive system, heart, digestive system, and increased the chance that you will get cancer.
-
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/sugar-problem/refined-sugar-the-sweetest-poison-of-all
SUGAR: HARMFUL TO HUMANS AND ANIMALS
Shipwrecked sailors who ate and drank nothing but sugar and rum for nine days surely went through some of this trauma; the tales they had to tell created a big public relations problem for the sugar pushers. This incident occurred when a vessel carrying a cargo of sugar was shipwrecked in 1793. The five surviving sailors were finally rescued after being marooned for nine days. They were in a wasted condition due to starvation, having consumed nothing but sugar and rum. The eminent French physiologist F. Magendie was inspired by that incident to conduct a series of experiments with animals, the results of which he published in 1816. In the experiments, he fed dogs a diet of sugar or olive oil and water. All the dogs wasted and died.3
The shipwrecked sailors and the French physiologist's experimental dogs proved the same point. As a steady diet, sugar is worse than nothing. Plain water can keep you alive for quite some time. Sugar and water can kill you. Humans [and animals] are "unable to subsist on a diet of sugar".4 The dead dogs in Professor Magendie's laboratory alerted the sugar industry to the hazards of free scientific inquiry. From that day to this, the sugar industry has invested millions of dollars in behind-the-scenes, subsidized science. The best scientific names that money could buy have been hired, in the hope that they could one day come up with something at least pseudoscientific in the way of glad tidings about sugar.
It has been proved, however, that (1) sugar is a major factor in dental decay; (2) sugar in a person's diet does cause overweight; (3) removal of sugar from diets has cured symptoms of crippling, worldwide diseases such as diabetes, cancer and heart illnesses. Sir Frederick Banting, the codiscoverer of insulin, noticed in 1929 in Panama that, among sugar plantation owners who ate large amounts of their refined stuff, diabetes was common. Among native cane-cutters, who only got to chew the raw cane, he saw no diabetes. However, the story of the public relations attempts on the part of the sugar manufacturers began in Britain in 1808 when the Committee of West India reported to the House of Commons that a prize of twenty-five guineas had been offered to anyone who could come up with the most "satisfactory" experiments to prove that unrefined sugar was good for feeding and fattening oxen, cows, hogs and sheep.5
Food for animals is often seasonal, always expensive. Sugar, by then, was dirt cheap. People weren't eating it fast enough. Naturally, the attempt to feed livestock with sugar and molasses in England in 1808 was a disaster. When the Committee on West India made its fourth report to the House of Commons, one Member of Parliament, John Curwin, reported that he had tried to feed sugar and molasses to calves without success. He suggested that perhaps someone should try again by sneaking sugar and molasses into skimmed milk. Had anything come of that, you can be sure the West Indian sugar merchants would have spread the news around the world. After this singular lack of success in pushing sugar in cow pastures, the West Indian sugar merchants gave up.
With undaunted zeal for increasing the market demand for the most important agricultural product of the West Indies, the Committee of West India was reduced to a tactic that has served the sugar pushers for almost 200 years: irrelevant and transparently silly testimonials from faraway, inaccessible people with some kind of "scientific" credentials. While preparing his epochal volume, A History of Nutrition, published in 1957, Professor E. V. McCollum (Johns Hopkins university), sometimes called America's foremost nutritionist and certainly a pioneer in the field, reviewed approximately 200,000 published scientific papers, recording experiments with food, their properties, their utilization and their effects on animals and men. The material covered the period from the mid-18th century to 1940. From this great repository of scientific inquiry, McCollum selected those experiments which he regarded as significant "to relate the story of progress in discovering human error in this segment of science [of nutrition]".
Professor McCollum failed to record a single controlled scientific experiment with sugar between 1816 and 1940. unhappily, we must remind ourselves that scientists today, and always, accomplish little without a sponsor. The protocols of modern science have compounded the costs of scientific inquiry. We have no right to be surprised when we read the introduction to McCollum's A History of Nutrition and find that "The author and publishers are indebted to The Nutrition Foundation, Inc., for a grant provided to meet a portion of the cost of publication of this book". What, you might ask, is The Nutrition Foundation, Inc.? The author and the publishers don't tell you. It happens to be a front organization for the leading sugar-pushing conglomerates in the food business, including the American Sugar Refining Company, Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Curtis Candy Co., General Foods, General Mills, Nestlé Co., Pet Milk Co. and Sunshine Biscuits-about 45 such companies in all. Perhaps the most significant thing about McCollum's 1957 history was what he left out: a monumental earlier work described by an eminent Harvard professor as "one of those epochal pieces of research which makes every other investigator desirous of kicking himself because he never thought of doing the same thing".
In the 1930s, a research dentist from Cleveland, Ohio, Dr. Weston A. Price, traveled all over the world-from the lands of the Eskimos to the South Sea Islands, from Africa to New Zealand. His Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects,6 which is illustrated with hundreds of photographs, was first published in 1939. Dr. Price took the whole world as his laboratory. His devastating conclusion, recorded in horrifying detail in area after area, was simple. People who live under so-called backward primitive conditions had excellent teeth and wonderful general health. They ate natural, unrefined food from their own locale. As soon as refined, sugared foods were imported as a result of contact with "civilization," physical degeneration began in a way that was definitely observable within a single generation. Any credibility the sugar pushers have is based on our ignorance of works like that of Dr. Price.
Sugar manufacturers keep trying, hoping and contributing generous research grants to colleges and universities; but the research laboratories never come up with anything solid the manufacturers can use. Invariably, the research results are bad news. "Let us go to the ignorant savage, consider his way of eating and be wise," Harvard professor Ernest Hooten said in Apes, Men, and Morons.7 "Let us cease pretending that toothbrushes and toothpaste are any more important than shoe brushes and shoe polish. It is store food that has given us store teeth." When the researchers bite the hands that feed them, and the news gets out, it's embarrassing all around. In 1958, Time magazine reported that a Harvard biochemist and his assistants had worked with myriads of mice for more than ten years, bankrolled by the Sugar Research Foundation, Inc. to the tune of $57,000, to find out how sugar causes dental cavities and how to prevent this. It took them ten years to discover that there was no way to prevent sugar causing dental decay. When the researchers reported their findings in the Dental Association Journal, their source of money dried up. The Sugar Research Foundation withdrew its support. The more that the scientists disappointed them, the more the sugar pushers had to rely on the ad men.
This is really incredibly dumb. In so many ways.. I'm not going to bother right now to point out the flaws. Maybe some other day.
But you and people like you who "put their faith in" (see what I did there?) nonsense like this will not allow yourselves to be persuaded by logic or rationality. Because this junk confirms your biases. So it's almost pointless.
-
Forget about using poison to cure cancer. Just do what Steve Jobs did and meditate it away.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2011/10/24/steve-jobs-cancer-treatment-regrets/
-
According to virtually all sources the average American consumes more than 2X the recommended daily allowance of Sugar.
Do you aspire to be an "average American?" (Is mediocrity and poor health appealing to you?)
Or do you aspire to be healthy?
The choice is yours. It is everyone's choice.
-
According to virtually all sources the average American consumes more than 2X the recommended daily allowance of Sugar. I have looked at a variety of studies and most indicate that sugar contributes to many health problems. Also there are studies which confirm that sugar (beyond what a healthy body requires) causes tumor growth (in people with cancer).
Can you provide evidence for your statement 'That is leftwing nonsense spread by leftists who are afraid of the boogeyman and of cooties in our food.'?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22617559
But I don't add any sugar in my food.
-
This is really incredibly dumb. In so many ways.. I'm not going to bother right now to point out the flaws. Maybe some other day.
But you and people like you who "put their faith in" (see what I did there?) nonsense like this will not allow yourselves to be persuaded by logic or rationality. Because this junk confirms your biases. So it's almost pointless.
Admittedly, I can tear it up too, and I'd tell whoever wrote the article to stay off my side. All you need to see is the black paste that will be white "sugar" before they bleach it, and IT MAKES YOU LESS MAN, and that's argument enough for me. To start with attacking the article, many other foods that acidify your blood will kill you if consumed solely, and they have no way of knowing if the sailors died of dehydration, or otherwise, and it's attacking sugar in general, which is the left-wing population control scientist platform, equally bad to the right wing ones, and they both work together for the same goal, the name I call them.
-
*Shiver*. Shaking in my boots. Let's play a guessing game. On a scale from 1 to I don't give a [censored], try to guess how much I care?
If you want to converse with the adults of this forum, you should drop the obscenity routine. We are civil here. And you set a bad example for kids who might be reading with your foul language.
-
Some people are very naive in that they trust that the corporations and the scientists really care about the people. Again and again it has been demonstrated that in virtually every case the corporations care about the bottom line (making profit, damn the customer) and scientists care less about science and more about making $$$$.
I just hope some of these naive folks grow up soon before they realize it too late.
Maybe we should talk about 'climate change' scientists and who they report to. I do not believe in 'human created' global warming (although anyone with a brain knows that the Earth has gone through several warming and cooling periods in history). But the scientists are screaming at the top of their lungs, and the politicians are the ones driving the research. They are creating an entire industry around the 'global warming' myth. And they all are scientists with degrees from prestigious colleges.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey_6GOBTtlM
-
I don't know if this video is any good, it is on the corruption of climate change science (but runs 2hrs+)..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCRF4VgI9VY
-
Muman, I am very sorry to read about your sugar addiction. I would say to pray to Hashem to help you and to give you strength to cut down. Don't start cold turkey, just start cutting down. I am concerned, because if you drink that much sugar a day, it may lead to some big problems later. Please cut down!
I starting to take Xylitol, by the way. I know "fake sugar" is not good. I rather moderately take some sugar with my coffee or tea than use fake sugars. I used to use Splenda all the time, now if I use sweetener it's moderate sugar (and I brush my teeth right after or chew on xylitol gum) or just use xylitol sweetener. Why do I go on about xylitol? Because as it turns out, xylitol has no effect on teeth. I used stevia and went running back to sugar.
Sugar is not good, but it is delicious. It's impossible to just give it up. I believe more in limiting sugar each day and occasionally reward myself with a decadent sugary dessert or ice cream once on the weekends. But to be honest, EVERYTHING turns into sugar. To cut down on refined sugar, however, is the question and it is not the same as natural sugars (like fruit) which is good. Pasta and alcohol also turn into sugar.
Also, honestly speaking, Shabbos and Yontif = a lot of decadent sugar deserts and things that turn into sugar. It's just not possible to flat out ignore sugar but, it should be used in moderation.
-
Muman, I am very sorry to read about your sugar addiction. I would say to pray to Hashem to help you and to give you strength to cut down. Don't start cold turkey, just start cutting down. I am concerned, because if you drink that much sugar a day, it may lead to some big problems later. Please cut down!
I starting to take Xylitol, by the way. I know "fake sugar" is not good. I rather moderately take some sugar with my coffee or tea than use fake sugars. I used to use Splenda all the time, now if I use sweetener it's moderate sugar (and I brush my teeth right after or chew on xylitol gum) or just use xylitol sweetener. Why do I go on about xylitol? Because as it turns out, xylitol has no effect on teeth. I used stevia and went running back to sugar.
Sugar is not good, but it is delicious. It's impossible to just give it up. I believe more in limiting sugar each day and occasionally reward myself with a decadent sugary dessert or ice cream once on the weekends. But to be honest, EVERYTHING turns into sugar. To cut down on refined sugar, however, is the question and it is not the same as natural sugars (like fruit) which is good. Pasta and alcohol also turn into sugar.
Also, honestly speaking, Shabbos and Yontif = a lot of decadent sugar deserts and things that turn into sugar. It's just not possible to flat out ignore sugar but, it should be used in moderation.
Shalom IsraeliHeart,
Thank you so much for your empathy, I appreciate it.
I think I am making progress. Yesterday and today I only drank about 7 cokes (down from 12). I am drinking more water than normal, and cold water sure is good. Sometimes I feel like so much coke is making me dehydrated (I think this is a known effect) and I wake up thirsty every morning.
But I am cutting down once again. And I am praying for help in keeping myself healthy. When you start to feel 'OLD" (I am going to be 50 in January, and I know 'that's not old' cause I hear it all the time at minyan) but I feel old because of these health issues.
Thank you once again,
PS: My mom's doctor has told her to cut down on pasta (and my step dad who is currently in late stage cancer)...
-
Good!! I'm glad to hear of it. Keep going, don't give up! You should continue to drink more water like you are doing, I'm trying to drink more as well.
I am overall dehydrated and I know the "feeling old" feeling. I'm trying to live healthier. Although I should not feel "old" since I'm in my early 30s- my ex (who is 49 btw) is a lot healthier than I am. It's not a matter of age to feel good.
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1c/b9/96/1cb99666e053a4036241557dbe0f37dd.jpg)
-
In other 'news'.... Tonight I had to pick up some things at the grocery store and I bought some 'sugar free' Oatmeal cookies.
I hope they taste good..
-
Muman, I am very sorry to read about your sugar addiction. I would say to pray to Hashem to help you and to give you strength to cut down. Don't start cold turkey, just start cutting down. I am concerned, because if you drink that much sugar a day, it may lead to some big problems later. Please cut down!
I starting to take Xylitol, by the way. I know "fake sugar" is not good. I rather moderately take some sugar with my coffee or tea than use fake sugars. I used to use Splenda all the time, now if I use sweetener it's moderate sugar (and I brush my teeth right after or chew on xylitol gum) or just use xylitol sweetener. Why do I go on about xylitol? Because as it turns out, xylitol has no effect on teeth. I used stevia and went running back to sugar.
Sugar is not good, but it is delicious. It's impossible to just give it up. I believe more in limiting sugar each day and occasionally reward myself with a decadent sugary dessert or ice cream once on the weekends. But to be honest, EVERYTHING turns into sugar. To cut down on refined sugar, however, is the question and it is not the same as natural sugars (like fruit) which is good. Pasta and alcohol also turn into sugar.
Also, honestly speaking, Shabbos and Yontif = a lot of decadent sugar deserts and things that turn into sugar. It's just not possible to flat out ignore sugar but, it should be used in moderation.
Do not touch splenda ever for your own sake. Xylitol is fine. http://blog.isowhey.com.au/2011/05/10/sugar-white-vs-raw-vs-brown-the-answers/
-
Some people are very naive in that they trust that the corporations and the scientists really care about the people. Again and again it has been demonstrated that in virtually every case the corporations care about the bottom line (making profit, damn the customer) and scientists care less about science and more about making $$$$.
I just hope some of these naive folks grow up soon before they realize it too late.
Maybe we should talk about 'climate change' scientists and who they report to. I do not believe in 'human created' global warming (although anyone with a brain knows that the Earth has gone through several warming and cooling periods in history). But the scientists are screaming at the top of their lungs, and the politicians are the ones driving the research. They are creating an entire industry around the 'global warming' myth. And they all are scientists with degrees from prestigious colleges.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey_6GOBTtlM
Some people are naive enough to believe that other people choose for them, and that their health is not in their own hands. Some are naive enough to blame others for their own poor health and eating decisions. Don't be one of those people. Stop being one of those people. It is not the fault of scientists that you are addicted to soda. You need to quit blaming other people and perhaps try a 12 step program to overcome your addiction.
-
Some people are naive enough to believe that other people choose for them, and that their health is not in their own hands. Some are naive enough to blame others for their own poor health and eating decisions. Don't be one of those people. Stop being one of those people. It is not the fault of scientists that you are addicted to soda. You need to quit blaming other people and perhaps try a 12 step program to overcome your addiction.
That's low. You're making an ad homenim attack on him because he brings up information about scientific fraud in response to your ad campaign for big pharma, and are basically saying that he's making up the fact that the population control scientists release do-it-yourself population control studies, in order to excuse his addiction. Then you make him feel like he's just putting his problems on you, and not trying to expose scientific fraud.
You need to learn how to debate with a little class. I may be vulgar, but I don't attack unless there's an attack. Also, I don't ignore arguments or belittle them by belittling anyone's credibility as a person.
Just admit you don't know much about the topic and move on, don't try to arrogantly force others to accept your ignorance by defaming those that speak out on it.
-
That's low. You're making an ad homenim attack on him because he brings up information about scientific fraud in response to your ad campaign for big pharma, and are basically saying that he's making up the fact that the population control scientists release do-it-yourself population control studies, in order to excuse his addiction. Then you make him feel like he's just putting his problems on you, and not trying to expose scientific fraud.
You need to learn how to debate with a little class. I may be vulgar, but I don't attack unless there's an attack. Also, I don't ignore arguments or belittle them by belittling anyone's credibility as a person.
Just admit you don't know much about the topic and move on, don't try to arrogantly force others to accept your ignorance by defaming those that speak out on it.
Nonsense.
He made an ad hominem attack against all scientists, essentially scapegoating them as completely evil and motivated purely by money and greed only who would all justify evil behavior for the sake of money. And in a conspiracy to purposely perpetrate evil. Wow a whole group of people generalized like that? It sounds like goebbels propaganda against Jews. He also refuses to take responsibility but instead blames a vast conspiracy of scientists and coorporations forcing him to drink soda.
I enourage him to stop unfairly blaming "the scientists" (or the Jews) and start taking responsibility.
He is making the discocurse low with discriminatory, ignorant and inaccurate attacks against a huge group of many different individuals.
-
I know plenty about the subject as my previous comments clearly indicate, so there is. Nothing for me to "admit."
There are fraudulent people in every field.. that does not mean that every person is. Or that an entire field is by nature.
If a software engineer wroking for the govt gave away security secrets to china in exchange for money (yes. That has happened) does that mean "all software engineers" are greedy traitors for hire? That's the kind of idiotic logic we are dealing with here. Just insanity. But because muman blames scientists for his ailments and the world's he apparently thinks it is ok to scapegoat them. It's not.
-
Nonsense.
He made an ad hominem attack against all scientists, essentially scapegoating them as completely evil and motivated purely by money and greed only who would all justify evil behavior for the sake of money. And in a conspiracy to purposely perpetrate evil. Wow a whole group of people generalized like that? It sounds like goebbels propaganda against Jews. He also refuses to take responsibility but instead blames a vast conspiracy of scientists and coorporations forcing him to drink soda.
I enourage him to stop unfairly blaming "the scientists" (or the Jews) and start taking responsibility.
He is making the discocurse low with discriminatory, ignorant and inaccurate attacks against a huge group of many different individuals.
You make things up out of nothing. Nowhere did I say that all scientists are corrupt. But my point, which totally slipped your mind, is that there are industries which have paid to cover up facts which could be detrimental to the industry. This has occured, and continues to occur, in the tobacco, sugar, pharma, and weather industries.
You can deny it all you like but it doesn't change the facts.
-
I know plenty about the subject as my previous comments clearly indicate, so there is. Nothing for me to "admit."
There are fraudulent people in every field.. that does not mean that every person is. Or that an entire field is by nature.
If a software engineer wroking for the govt gave away security secrets to china in exchange for money (yes. That has happened) does that mean "all software engineers" are greedy traitors for hire? That's the kind of idiotic logic we are dealing with here. Just insanity. But because muman blames scientists for his ailments and the world's he apparently thinks it is ok to scapegoat them. It's not.
LOL... Again you are reacting without thinking... You are biased and you don't want to admit that there has been a lot of misinformation spread in the name of science.
Nowhere did I blame scientists for my problems. I do blame them for making sugar and other foods appear less dangerous than they actually are. But you don't care about facts, you just seem to want to defend something which is indefensible, and try to attack my character. I know fools like you, and I don't respect your so-called 'scientific' knowledge.
-
Nonsense.
He made an ad hominem attack against all scientists, essentially scapegoating them as completely evil and motivated purely by money and greed only who would all justify evil behavior for the sake of money. And in a conspiracy to purposely perpetrate evil. Wow a whole group of people generalized like that? It sounds like goebbels propaganda against Jews. He also refuses to take responsibility but instead blames a vast conspiracy of scientists and coorporations forcing him to drink soda.
I enourage him to stop unfairly blaming "the scientists" (or the Jews) and start taking responsibility.
He is making the discocurse low with discriminatory, ignorant and inaccurate attacks against a huge group of many different individuals.
KWRBT, you argue like an imbecile. Why do you make stuff up and attempt to say I said it. Nowhere have I ever blamed the 'Jews' for any of this. What is wrong with you?
-
I know plenty about the subject as my previous comments clearly indicate, so there is. Nothing for me to "admit."
There are fraudulent people in every field.. that does not mean that every person is. Or that an entire field is by nature.
If a software engineer wroking for the govt gave away security secrets to china in exchange for money (yes. That has happened) does that mean "all software engineers" are greedy traitors for hire? That's the kind of idiotic logic we are dealing with here. Just insanity. But because muman blames scientists for his ailments and the world's he apparently thinks it is ok to scapegoat them. It's not.
You know nothing and your comments here in this thread are ignorant.
Also your analogy is non sequitur (has no application to the issue). The software industry does not pay 'scientists' to fudge numbers and data... So what are you trying to say here? Straw man? Non-Sequitur...
-
My purpose for this thread to is alert people who should know how dangerous consumption of this product is... Sugar consumption is costing this country a great deal in medical costs due to the unhealthy conditions it contributes to.
30 years ago we were given the impression, from the scientists and marketing, that the sugar was not a hazard to our health. They increased its use in many products which most people didn't even consider having sugar in it. Today we know things because some scientists have spoken up about the threats the scientists who are not paid by the sugar lobby.
But I will cease arguing with you. You obviously are biased and can only resort to personal attacks rather than address the issue. You have only supported those who acted with malicious intent which makes me wonder if you can be trusted to work in any scientific endeavor. There is such a thing as scientific ethics, something you appear to not have taken seriously.
I am a computer SCIENTIST and got my degree in this field. I know about science and fully trust hard sciences which can be demonstrated through repeatable experiments.
-
More scientific evidence that the food industry employed scientists who were biased in order to minimize any appearance of health hazards...
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001578
Abstract
Background
Industry sponsors' financial interests might bias the conclusions of scientific research. We examined whether financial industry funding or the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest influenced the results of published systematic reviews (SRs) conducted in the field of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and weight gain or obesity.
Methods and Findings
We conducted a search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases to identify published SRs from the inception of the databases to August 31, 2013, on the association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. SR conclusions were independently classified by two researchers into two groups: those that found a positive association and those that did not. These two reviewers were blinded with respect to the stated source of funding and the disclosure of conflicts of interest.
We identified 17 SRs (with 18 conclusions). In six of the SRs a financial conflict of interest with some food industry was disclosed. Among those reviews without any reported conflict of interest, 83.3% of the conclusions (10/12) were that SSB consumption could be a potential risk factor for weight gain. In contrast, the same percentage of conclusions, 83.3% (5/6), of those SRs disclosing some financial conflict of interest with the food industry were that the scientific evidence was insufficient to support a positive association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. Those reviews with conflicts of interest were five times more likely to present a conclusion of no positive association than those without them (relative risk: 5.0, 95% CI: 1.3–19.3).
An important limitation of this study is the impossibility of ruling out the existence of publication bias among those studies not declaring any conflict of interest. However, the best large randomized trials also support a direct association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity.
Conclusions
Financial conflicts of interest may bias conclusions from SRs on SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity.
-
LOL... Again you are reacting without thinking... You are biased and you don't want to admit that there has been a lot of misinformation spread in the name of science.
Nowhere did I blame scientists for my problems. I do blame them for making sugar and other foods appear less dangerous than they actually are. But you don't care about facts, you just seem to want to defend something which is indefensible, and try to attack my character. I know fools like you, and I don't respect your so-called 'scientific' knowledge.
You should put your money where your dirty mouth is and opt to forego all medical advvances of the 20th and 21st century because they were all developed by scientists whom you say misrepresent the facts. It's pure hypocrisy because you would never have the balls to let an illness (chas vveshalom) go untreated. And that would be pretty dumb. There are scientists who study all sorts of subjects. Your claim that all those who study food or sugar are paid dishonest shills for corporations is a low blow and very ignorant. I don't respect stupidity or the attempt to perpetuate it in the forum.
-
You should put your money where your dirty mouth is and opt to forego all medical advvances of the 20th and 21st century because they were all developed by scientists whom you say misrepresent the facts. It's pure hypocrisy because you would never have the balls to let an illness (chas vveshalom) go untreated. And that would be pretty dumb. There are scientists who study all sorts of subjects. Your claim that all those who study food or sugar are paid dishonest shills for corporations is a low blow and very ignorant. I don't respect stupidity or the attempt to perpetuate it in the forum.
You seem to have some serious problems with comprehension. Ill let you consult with your doctors about it.
The fallacious comments in your posts are laughable. I dont have time for dim-wits.
I never said 'all' of anything, this is your problem with reading and understanding... The facts remain, despite your protestation, that corruption of science goes on in the food and other industries...
If you really feel I have said 'all scientists are corrupt' I suggest you try to find the post where I said such a thing. Never said it..
-
You should put your money where your dirty mouth is and opt to forego all medical advvances of the 20th and 21st century because they were all developed by scientists whom you say misrepresent the facts. It's pure hypocrisy because you would never have the balls to let an illness (chas vveshalom) go untreated. And that would be pretty dumb. There are scientists who study all sorts of subjects. Your claim that all those who study food or sugar are paid dishonest shills for corporations is a low blow and very ignorant. I don't respect stupidity or the attempt to perpetuate it in the forum.
Then you're either a self-disrespecting Jew, you never reread your posts or you can't recognize it. Really, Muman has a dirty mouth now? Ironically, it's dirty accusing him of that after everything.
Watch out cashiers will try to steal some of your money. The florist is aaaalways going to push for the overpriced one. Car salesmen always try to sell you the useless extras.
The sentences you may have just read could come up in your lifetime in the form of a piece of advice. Now if you organize the salvation army to protest with you and beat drums with the hippies because you plan to be that man who draws the line in the sand for florist abuse, as much as you scream "you shall not pass" it doesn't change the fact that we're talking about jobs, not people, and that's how you can get screwed over by that job.
There are lots of good scientists and doctors too. We wouldn't know that there are bad scientists and doctors if there weren't good scientists and doctors, because no one else would be qualified to speak out on the subject. People in any position of power or usefulness can be useful or pretend to be useful and really screw you over. It's your job to make sure you know how they might screw you over so that you can avoid that. There are bad dentists out there too. Go there first for a cleaning then go to the good dentist for your surgery.
Some scientists and doctors screw people over. There's a lot that are good people, but it's like being in an environment surrounding with the option and the visual and auditory encouragement to purchase and/or consume it. Already, the weak ones go in round 1, then there's enough with the bad ones to swing the middle, and the top don't want to loose their jobs, and some fields, and Muman pointed out one which has completely became like that, environmental science, and in a field like that, there is no place for the truth and the doctor or scientist who speaks against it is by default against the system.
Some jobs have a lot of corruption, some have less. Muman never said scientists and Jews are nazis, and you said the pharmaceutical industry is run by the Dalai Lama and the Pillsbury doughboy so you decided to bring him down to your level where you know enough to argue and say Muman promotes the boogeyman to eat the poor scientists' and doctors' (who shouldn't be making my food in the first place) kids. Muman clearly said he was obligated to take medication to function normally. You said he discounts all medical advances of the 20th century. There's so many jokes I could make about it, it's doubly funny, but still not funny enough for me to do anything other than groan over how stupid that is.
-
Then you're either a self-disrespecting Jew, you never reread your posts or you can't recognize it. Really, Muman has a dirty mouth now? Ironically, it's dirty accusing him of that after everything.
Watch out cashiers will try to steal some of your money. The florist is aaaalways going to push for the overpriced one. Car salesmen always try to sell you the useless extras.
The sentences you may have just read could come up in your lifetime in the form of a piece of advice. Now if you organize the salvation army to protest with you and beat drums with the hippies because you plan to be that man who draws the line in the sand for florist abuse, as much as you scream "you shall not pass" it doesn't change the fact that we're talking about jobs, not people, and that's how you can get screwed over by that job.
There are lots of good scientists and doctors too. We wouldn't know that there are bad scientists and doctors if there weren't good scientists and doctors, because no one else would be qualified to speak out on the subject. People in any position of power or usefulness can be useful or pretend to be useful and really screw you over. It's your job to make sure you know how they might screw you over so that you can avoid that. There are bad dentists out there too. Go there first for a cleaning then go to the good dentist for your surgery.
Some scientists and doctors screw people over. There's a lot that are good people, but it's like being in an environment surrounding with the option and the visual and auditory encouragement to purchase and/or consume it. Already, the weak ones go in round 1, then there's enough with the bad ones to swing the middle, and the top don't want to loose their jobs, and some fields, and Muman pointed out one which has completely became like that, environmental science, and in a field like that, there is no place for the truth and the doctor or scientist who speaks against it is by default against the system.
Some jobs have a lot of corruption, some have less. Muman never said scientists and Jews are nazis, and you said the pharmaceutical industry is run by the Dalai Lama and the Pillsbury doughboy so you decided to bring him down to your level where you know enough to argue and say Muman promotes the boogeyman to eat the poor scientists' and doctors' (who shouldn't be making my food in the first place) kids. Muman clearly said he was obligated to take medication to function normally. You said he discounts all medical advances of the 20th century. There's so many jokes I could make about it, it's doubly funny, but still not funny enough for me to do anything other than groan over how stupid that is.
Since according to him all the pharma companies push addictive treatments in order to harm people and get them addicted, and they are corrupt and evil doing anything for a profit, it is extremely hypocrticial of muman to claim that but simultaneously take medicine which he BENEFITS from.
-
Since according to him all the pharma companies push addictive treatments in order to harm people and get them addicted, and they are corrupt and evil doing anything for a profit, it is extremely hypocritical of muman to claim that but simultaneously take medicine which he BENEFITS from.
Why is everything you say a logical fallacy? It's like saying it's hypocritical for smokers to say cigarette companies put bad things in cigarettes because they enjoy them. Muman's probably got the right idea about wasting time.
-
Why is everything you say a logical fallacy? It's like saying it's hypocritical for smokers to say cigarette companies put bad things in cigarettes because they enjoy them. Muman's probably got the right idea about wasting time.
It shows his portrayal of pharma is a caricature and not true. The logical fallacy was when you equated "enjoying cigarettes" even though they are bad and the makers don't care if they're bad (all true) with "gaining health benefits from medicines made by people u and muman claim are supposedly bad and make things to purposely harm people." The health benefits belie the claim!
Enjoyment of cigarettes doesn't change they are unhealthy and the makers are purposely putting out unhealthy things people enjoy. Must I explain everything to you?
-
It shows his portrayal of pharma is a caricature and not true. The logical fallacy was when you equated "enjoying cigarettes" even though they are bad and the makers don't care if they're bad (all true) with "gaining health benefits from medicines made by people u and muman claim are supposedly bad and make things to purposely harm people." The health benefits belie the claim!
Enjoyment of cigarettes doesn't change they are unhealthy and the makers are purposely putting out unhealthy things people enjoy. Must I explain everything to you?
Oh you're trying to condescend, cute, adorable really.
-
Drugs are glamorous
(http://www.thefreshscent.com/wp-content/post_imgs/1006/faces_meth_08.jpg)
-
Drugs are glamorous
(http://www.thefreshscent.com/wp-content/post_imgs/1006/faces_meth_08.jpg)
You really have to do telemarketing to understand how Americans can get convinced to do meth.
-
http://www.cdapress.com/news/fit_for_life/article_7957258b-3df5-5fda-abbb-fb4da33ab7f0.html
How addictive is sugar?
Posted: Saturday, November 1, 2014 12:00 am
Judd Jones/Special to The Press | 0 comments
This week, I am going to be a bit of a buzzkill on all that Halloween candy - and for that matter, the upcoming sugary treats which are always part of the holiday season.
Let's look at the question, "How addictive is sugar?" and see if it is valid to compare sugar to other known addictive substances like alcohol, nicotine or heroin. We all know that too much sugar is unhealthy and most of us have a sweet tooth; for some, that may be putting it mildly.
Over the last 10 years, there have been numerous studies done on sugar and its affect in and on the human body. Most of the studies have shown that sugar has a strong impact on key centers in our brain.
When sugar hits our cerebral cortex, it triggers the nucleus accumbens - our brain's reward and pleasure center - spiking dopamine levels. This stimulates and drives the same cravings comparable to those induced by highly addictive drugs. The overall findings from the research suggests sugar can drive cravings and addictive behavior in the same fashion as drugs like cocaine and opiates. The intense neural effects of sugar on your dopamine levels in your brain may be the biggest reason many us have difficultly controlling our consumption of foods high in sugar.
Next, let's take a look at the simple carbohydrates which make up sugars such as sucrose, fructose, glucose and lactose. These sugars are composed of either one sugar (monosaccharides) or two sugars (disaccharides) in their chemical makeup.
Here is a breakdown of the most common types of sugars we consume:
* Sucrose, which consists of glucose and fructose together is found in plain white table sugar as well as turbinado sugar, brown sugar and powdered sugar. It is often a main ingredient in baked goods, drinks and candy.
* Fructose, typically found in fruit-juice concentrate, is almost twice as sweet as sucrose, and is attached to all the natural nutrients of fruit and fruit juice.
* Glucose, which is the basic form of sugar in our bloodstream, is often listed on labels as dextrose. It's the body's immediate source of cellular energy, so you'll see it a lot in sports energy bars and drinks.
* Lactose, which is mildly sweet, is a naturally occurring sugar found in milk and dairy products like yogurt. For many people, it can be a challenge to digest, which is where the term lactose intolerance comes into play.
Simple carbohydrates, or sugars as we know and love them, are very easily converted to energy in the body. This quick conversion often leads to an equally quick rise in blood sugar, which needs an insulin response from your pancreas. Insulin is an essential hormone which has a huge effect on our body.
The primary function of insulin is to control how the body uses the carbohydrates and fat we get from eating. Insulin allows our muscles, liver and fat cells to take up sugar as glucose which has been absorbed into the bloodstream from what we eat. It allows our blood sugar in the form of glucose to enter our cells and start fueling our bodies with glucose instead of fat.
If you spike your blood sugar regularly, over time you can develop what is known as insulin resistance, which research has proven to trigger chronic conditions and diseases like metabolic syndrome, obesity and Type II diabetes, to name a few.
While the dopamine in your brain loves that sugar high, your body can have a very hard time dealing with the sugar, especially when our cells become resistant to the effects of insulin. If you retain too much glucose in the blood, it becomes toxic and leads to complications like blindness, nerve damage, kidney damage and even death. As with most addictive substances, too much of anything can be a very bad thing, so chronically elevated blood sugars often cause severe harm.
With the overconsumption of sugar in most of our daily diets, it is not surprising to see that people who, for example drink heavily sweetened beverages, have as much as an 83 percent higher risk of Type II diabetes.
Research has shown that the overall effect sugar has on us can have a very negative impact on our cardiovascular health, weight and hormone balances, all of which ties back to overconsumption and addictive behavior. People who try to break their sugar addiction can experience withdrawal-like symptoms like anxiety, headaches, shakiness and extreme mood swings.
The bottom line to the addictive nature of sugar is pretty clear. The effects of sugar on our hormones and dopamine response in our brain makes sugar very addictive, and the subtle nature of sugar's effects on us makes it easy to overlook in our day-to-day consumption.
So 'how much sugar should we consume each day' is a tricky question. Some would say little to none, but that frankly is not realistic. Most nutritionists recommend your sugar intake should not exceed 6 to 7 percent of your daily calories. For example, if your calorie intake is around 2700 per day, you should limit your sugar to 47 grams. Of course, if you consume popular candy bars or sports drinks, you will exceed the daily-recommended amount - and then some - fairly quickly.
If you follow recommended dietary guidelines, does this still open you to an increasing chance of developing a sugar addiction? I think for some, this would be true, so cutting back on sugar to a bare minimum in adults and especially in children would be wise for our overall health and fitness.
Judd Jones is a director for the Hagadone Corporation.
-
http://www.cdapress.com/news/fit_for_life/article_7957258b-3df5-5fda-abbb-fb4da33ab7f0.html
How addictive is sugar?
Posted: Saturday, November 1, 2014 12:00 am
Judd Jones/Special to The Press | 0 comments
This week, I am going to be a bit of a buzzkill on all that Halloween candy - and for that matter, the upcoming sugary treats which are always part of the holiday season.
Let's look at the question, "How addictive is sugar?" and see if it is valid to compare sugar to other known addictive substances like alcohol, nicotine or heroin. We all know that too much sugar is unhealthy and most of us have a sweet tooth; for some, that may be putting it mildly.
Over the last 10 years, there have been numerous studies done on sugar and its affect in and on the human body. Most of the studies have shown that sugar has a strong impact on key centers in our brain.
When sugar hits our cerebral cortex, it triggers the nucleus accumbens - our brain's reward and pleasure center - spiking dopamine levels. This stimulates and drives the same cravings comparable to those induced by highly addictive drugs. The overall findings from the research suggests sugar can drive cravings and addictive behavior in the same fashion as drugs like cocaine and opiates. The intense neural effects of sugar on your dopamine levels in your brain may be the biggest reason many us have difficultly controlling our consumption of foods high in sugar.
Next, let's take a look at the simple carbohydrates which make up sugars such as sucrose, fructose, glucose and lactose. These sugars are composed of either one sugar (monosaccharides) or two sugars (disaccharides) in their chemical makeup.
Here is a breakdown of the most common types of sugars we consume:
* Sucrose, which consists of glucose and fructose together is found in plain white table sugar as well as turbinado sugar, brown sugar and powdered sugar. It is often a main ingredient in baked goods, drinks and candy.
* Fructose, typically found in fruit-juice concentrate, is almost twice as sweet as sucrose, and is attached to all the natural nutrients of fruit and fruit juice.
* Glucose, which is the basic form of sugar in our bloodstream, is often listed on labels as dextrose. It's the body's immediate source of cellular energy, so you'll see it a lot in sports energy bars and drinks.
* Lactose, which is mildly sweet, is a naturally occurring sugar found in milk and dairy products like yogurt. For many people, it can be a challenge to digest, which is where the term lactose intolerance comes into play.
Simple carbohydrates, or sugars as we know and love them, are very easily converted to energy in the body. This quick conversion often leads to an equally quick rise in blood sugar, which needs an insulin response from your pancreas. Insulin is an essential hormone which has a huge effect on our body.
The primary function of insulin is to control how the body uses the carbohydrates and fat we get from eating. Insulin allows our muscles, liver and fat cells to take up sugar as glucose which has been absorbed into the bloodstream from what we eat. It allows our blood sugar in the form of glucose to enter our cells and start fueling our bodies with glucose instead of fat.
If you spike your blood sugar regularly, over time you can develop what is known as insulin resistance, which research has proven to trigger chronic conditions and diseases like metabolic syndrome, obesity and Type II diabetes, to name a few.
While the dopamine in your brain loves that sugar high, your body can have a very hard time dealing with the sugar, especially when our cells become resistant to the effects of insulin. If you retain too much glucose in the blood, it becomes toxic and leads to complications like blindness, nerve damage, kidney damage and even death. As with most addictive substances, too much of anything can be a very bad thing, so chronically elevated blood sugars often cause severe harm.
With the overconsumption of sugar in most of our daily diets, it is not surprising to see that people who, for example drink heavily sweetened beverages, have as much as an 83 percent higher risk of Type II diabetes.
Research has shown that the overall effect sugar has on us can have a very negative impact on our cardiovascular health, weight and hormone balances, all of which ties back to overconsumption and addictive behavior. People who try to break their sugar addiction can experience withdrawal-like symptoms like anxiety, headaches, shakiness and extreme mood swings.
The bottom line to the addictive nature of sugar is pretty clear. The effects of sugar on our hormones and dopamine response in our brain makes sugar very addictive, and the subtle nature of sugar's effects on us makes it easy to overlook in our day-to-day consumption.
So 'how much sugar should we consume each day' is a tricky question. Some would say little to none, but that frankly is not realistic. Most nutritionists recommend your sugar intake should not exceed 6 to 7 percent of your daily calories. For example, if your calorie intake is around 2700 per day, you should limit your sugar to 47 grams. Of course, if you consume popular candy bars or sports drinks, you will exceed the daily-recommended amount - and then some - fairly quickly.
If you follow recommended dietary guidelines, does this still open you to an increasing chance of developing a sugar addiction? I think for some, this would be true, so cutting back on sugar to a bare minimum in adults and especially in children would be wise for our overall health and fitness.
Judd Jones is a director for the Hagadone Corporation.
You just quoted someone who does research and works for a corporation. But before you slandered all corporate researchers as liars cheats, and frauds (when their point of view disagrees with yours, of course). It is blatant hypocrisy. You just try to discredit whomever disagrees with your bias (or the research of whomever disagrees with your bias). And the "reason" behind your ad hominem attacks suddenly doesn't matter if the individual in question supports your view.
-
You really have to do telemarketing to understand how Americans can get convinced to do meth.
eek. I hate telemarketers. you'd have to take meth to do telemarketing.
-
You just quoted someone who does research and works for a corporation. But before you slandered all corporate researchers as liars cheats, and frauds (when their point of view disagrees with yours, of course). It is blatant hypocrisy. You just try to discredit whomever disagrees with your bias (or the research of whomever disagrees with your bias). And the "reason" behind your ad hominem attacks suddenly doesn't matter if the individual in question supports your view.
Translation: awawawa [logical fallacy awa], awawa.