Sugar Should Be Regulated As Toxin, Researchers Say

Originally posted by Artlicious
Sugar is a toxin to your body's immune system.. I've known this for years and for years I've been trying to battle my sugar addiction. I'm pretty much over it now. I do not drink soda and rarely eat any candy, cakes, pastry's, etc... I can tell a big difference in how I feel and how little I get sick now. I'm so happy I made the effort to get past sugar and I reccomend anyone who wants to be more healthy to do the same.

Right on brother, I haven't eaten refined sugars or processed foods for over 2 years now. I am seriously healthy, fit and strong. I do work out, but even if I didn't, living this lifestyle just makes you feel better.

I am a firm believer excessive amounts of sugar, additives and preservatives in processed foods, in a majority of cases is the root cause of childhood ADD, ADHD and other mental health problems.

I don't believe sugar should be regulated. I think the focus should be on education. If governments around the world are serious about promoting health, a good start would be to subsidise fruit and vegetables making them very cheap to purchase at the supermarket. By combining education and cheap prices, I feel it would be very successful.

The Obesity Epidemic: Banning HFCS is the Solution

Obesity has reached staggering proportions in America, home to the most obese people in the world. The obesity rate of adult Americans has increased in 28 states over the past year, with Blacks and Latinos most at risk, according a new report released by the Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The report also found that over 67 percent of states have obesity rates above 25 percent, and that the number of states where adult obesity rates exceed 30 percent has doubled in the past year. The report also noted a link between lower income groups and higher obesity rates, but this should come as no surprise. Poorer people have less money to spend and therefore buy the cheapest food available. Unfortunately, this cheap food is also the unhealthiest. It is mainly processed food, and full of chemical additives such as high fructose corn syrup. But soaring obesity rates do not stop with American adults. In another recently-released report, one statistic really stuck out: that of extremely obese males aged 6 to 19. For this group, obesity has increased from 9% in 1999-2000 to 15% in 2009-2010 - an alarmimng increase of 67% in ten short years! Childhood obesity has become an epidemic in America, so much so that the First Lady, Michelle Obama, has launched a very ambitious plan to end childhood obesity in a single generation. She needs to be applauded for taking on this herculean task. "We want to eliminate this problem of childhood obesity in a generation. We want to get that done," said the first lady when she spoke with Robin Roberts of Good Morning America. "We want our kids to face a different and more optimistic future in terms of their lifespan." The nationwide campaign started by Mrs. Obama is called "Let's Move," and it's built on four key pillars: Getting parents more informed about nutrition and exercise, improving the quality of food in schools, making healthy foods more affordable and accessible for families, and focusing more on physical education. The initiative started by the First Lady is impressive, but sadly there is no mystery behind this obesity epidemic, and the other epidemic that it has spawned - that of diabetes. These twin epidemics are directly attributable to the standard American diet: fast-food, sodas, canned goods, microwave dinners - most of which are chemically altered - combined with the lack of exercise. This is a recipe for disaster. And Americans have chosen to literally eat themselves to death. The real cause of the twin epidemics of obesity and diabetes in America is high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a man-made chemical added to just about every processed food. This poison interferes with your hormones (this is the way your body communicates at a cellular level) and prevents your brain from telling you that you are full and need to stop eating. If you consider that of all the money spent on food in America, ninety percent (yes, 90%!) is spent on processed food, devoid of any fiber or nutrition and chock full of HFCS. Educating parents is part of the obesity solution, but banning HFCS will win the war against obesity and diabetes. It will kill two birds with one stone.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by dawnstar

 

I have an old Betty Crocker cookbook from the 50's.

Everything is cups of sugar and pounds of straight lard.

Yet where was obesity then? Where were all the fat kids?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Kids all played outdside...

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by dawnstar

 

I have an old Betty Crocker cookbook from the 50's.

Everything is cups of sugar and pounds of straight lard.

Yet where was obesity then? Where were all the fat kids?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Kids all played outdside...

Dr. Lustig covers this -- he says the older cookbooks have less sugar amounts than the newer editions of the same cooking books.

Sure people did more manual labor in the 1950s but also there wasn't super cheap HFCS in practically all processed food with a government movement to lower fat levels.

Indeed as Dr. Lustig details -- fat has gone down as a percentage of calories while carbs shot up with HFCS increasing over 1000% since the 1970s.

Originally posted by knightrider078
People want to make POT legal and reg Sugar WTF

Well, I don't think you're phrasing that right.

People want to make POT legal and regulate it.
People want to keep Sugar legal, but regulate it.

If people just used marijuana and sugar cane (both plants) and didn't chemically alter or refine them, I would see no problem. Truth is, if you didn't regulate (via price fixing) the sugar market, there probably wouldn't be such an artificial explosive use of it. You can get "sugar" from any old plant, practically, not just "sugar" cane.

reply to post by Sphota



personally, i think mayjay should be legal. i think it might do the world good.

as for regular white sugar or brown sugar or unprocessed cane sugar? LEAVE THAT ALONE!!!

they should regulate aspartame and fructose and all the dangerous nasty bad chemicals.

they should regulate Yellow 5 and Fluoride too!

but as for the normal healthy REAL sugar, the government shouldn't touch that at all. normal sugar is ok, as long as you don't eat to much.

too much of many things on their own can hurt you sometimes, that's obvious. but this is my opinion ( just saying )

reply to post by Binder


Are you serious? Which part of your knowledge was I supposed to be afraid of?

Gluconeogenesis is the synthesis of glucose from pyruvate, but NOT ONLY the pyruvate from glycolysis or from lactate via the Cori cycle!.

No one said anything about building an brand new glucose molecule "from scratch". You are jumping to false conclusions.

But wait, there's more!!!
Furthermore, some glucose can be synthesized from glycerol which comes from triacylglycerol from triglycerides or phospholipids, and from some odd number chains of fatty acids.

But, In general, gluconeogenesis produces glucose by using nearly all of the standard AMINO ACIDS from consumed protein sources or from catabolic breakdown of one's own tissues but alanine is the common one as it is converted to pyruvate via the alanine cycle and alanine aminotransferase.

Glycogen stores only last about 12 hours, so where does the glucose for the brain come from??? If you ate nothing for a day or two, your brain does not starve for lack of Glucose, you don't die from such a short starvation peroid because you can make the glucose your brain needs via GLUCONEOGENESIS.
How on earth does a bear make it through the long winter hybernation without dietary glucose???

The only way I can be proven wrong is to show that NO dietary protein or fats are converted to pyruvate ever. And none of your bodies own protein, and/or fat stores can be used to make glucose via gluconeogenesis.

Gluconeogenesis and energy expenditure after a high protein carbohydrate-free diet

GOOD LUCK!

And just for fun, why don't you read this little Wiki on Ketone bodies and how the brain uses them for what???? ENERGY!!!! wow, amazing the brain using something other than glucose for energy.
Ketone Bodies

DID YOUR MIND BLOW UP YET!!!

reply to post by SoymilkAlaska

they should regulate aspartame and fructose

Should they give us a limit at the grocery store for fructose? Like two apples, or 3 pounds of carrots?

They will need to give us ration cards, or unscrupulous consumers will go through the store lines twice to get four apples.

Originally posted by AutomaticSlim
reply to post by Binder

 

Gluconeogenesis is the synthesis of glucose from pyruvate, but NOT ONLY the pyruvate from glycolysis or from lactate via the Cori cycle!.

- You are referring to the Kreb's cycle, and aerobic Vs anaerobic metabolism, and obviously not fully understanding their correlations. The Cori cycle happens within the muscle fibers, and produces lactic acid it is, but one mechanism of the larger picture. Pyruvate is the simplest of the alpha keto-acids a KETONE. It can be derived from glucose, and used to process proteins, fats or carbs, and it can be derived from proteins. The point is that it does not work the other way around.

No one said anything about building a brand new glucose molecule "from scratch". You are jumping to false conclusions.

- Yes the OP made this very statement in many different forms too many times to bother quoting.

.
But wait, there's more!!!
Furthermore, some glucose can be synthesized from glycerol which comes from triacylglycerol from triglycerides or phospholipids, and from some odd number chains of fatty acids.

- I never said otherwise.

But, In general, gluconeogenesis produces glucose by using nearly all of the standard AMINO ACIDS from consumed protein sources or from catabolic breakdown of one's own tissues but alanine is the common one as it is converted to pyruvate via the alanine cycle and alanine aminotransferase.

Glycogen stores only last about 12 hours, so where does the glucose for the brain come from??? If you ate nothing for a day or two, your brain does not starve for lack of Glucose, you don't die from such a short starvation peroid because you can make the glucose your brain needs via GLUCONEOGENESIS.
How on earth does a bear make it through the long winter hybernation without dietary glucose???

The only way I can be proven wrong is to show that NO dietary protein or fats are converted to pyruvate ever. And none of your bodies own protein, and/or fat stores can be used to make glucose via gluconeogenesis.

- Fat was never in contention. At this point 5000 characters is not enought to properly demonstrate the flaw in your logic.

Gluconeogenesis and energy expenditure after a high protein carbohydrate-free diet

GOOD LUCK!

And just for fun, why don't you read this little Wiki on Ketone bodies and how the brain uses them for what???? ENERGY!!!! wow, amazing the brain using something other than glucose for energy.
Ketone Bodies

DID YOUR MIND BLOW UP YET!!!

No, but yours did when you started researching the fundamental concepts of metabolism. Again 5000 characters just isn't going to cut it, and it really is a rabbit trail to this thread. Good day.

PS: The pyruvate chain is not the droids you're looking for. I'm gonna go discuss cars now this is getting redundant.

reply to post by butcherguy



NO! you quoted me and took my words out of context!!!!!!!!!!!


my original words:

"
personally, i think mayjay should be legal. i think it might do the world good.

as for regular white sugar or brown sugar or unprocessed cane sugar? LEAVE THAT ALONE!!!

they should regulate aspartame and fructose and all the dangerous nasty bad chemicals.

they should regulate Yellow 5 and Fluoride too!

but as for the normal healthy REAL sugar, the government shouldn't touch that at all. normal sugar is ok, as long as you don't eat to much.

too much of many things on their own can hurt you sometimes, that's obvious. but this is my opinion ( just saying )"

reply to post by SoymilkAlaska

don't worry, the doctor won't be back.
i can take his theories apart in 2 minutes flat, just not sure if i want to share the knowledge.
star for you for your good fight!

reply to post by SoymilkAlaska

You called for regulation of fructose.

Most fruits and root vegetables contain fructose.

Honey is the natural equivalent of high fructose corn syrup. It contains more fructose than glucose.

How would we regulate these things? Would food manufacturers be limited in the amount of honey that could be used in a recipe? Would a person need to use 'de-fructosed' apples to bake a legal apple pie?

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by SoymilkAlaska

 

You called for regulation of fructose.

Most fruits and root vegetables contain fructose.

Honey is the natural equivalent of high fructose corn syrup. It contains more fructose than glucose.

How would we regulate these things? Would food manufacturers be limited in the amount of honey that could be used in a recipe? Would a person need to use 'de-fructosed' apples to bake a legal apple pie?

HFCS is already regulated -- it gets billions of dollars in welfare to be promoted by the government even though it's a poison.

Natural forms of fructose also come with enzymes and minerals and vitamins that change the digestion process whereas HFCS creates "reactive carbonyls" because the fructose is not bonded molecularly to the glucose. So the fructose is twice as sweet compared to natural fructose bonded to glucose.

Since HFCS is created through billions of dollars in welfare -- paid for by ordinary working citizens shelling out extra tax dollars -- HFCS is then put in tons of processed food and is the main ingredient in "fruit" drinks and soda.

So tax payers are shelling out extra cash to donate as welfare charity to put a poison in the food and drink -- which is then promoted through "guaranteed markets" -- vending machines in schools and the workplace where there are captive consumers.

So it's a big scam and conspiracy.

If people paid the real price for HFCS then a 16 oz. bottle of soda would cost $4 -- not $1.

That's the real cost people are paying -- not including the billions of dollars in medical costs from "metabolic syndrome" caused by HFCS -- diabetes, cardiovascular, gout, hypertension, obesity, cancer.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


Please provide the names of 3 people who developed diabetes because of HFCS along with the medical proof that distinguishes this case of diabetes from other types of diabetes.

Tired of Control Freaks

Natural forms of fructose also come with enzymes and minerals and vitamins that change the digestion process whereas HFCS creates "reactive carbonyls" because the fructose is not bonded molecularly to the glucose. So the fructose is twice as sweet compared to natural fructose bonded to glucose.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

You should read something other than propaganda sometime.

The reason that high fructose corn syrup is high fructose is because ordinary corn syrup does not taste as sweet. It is fructose that makes it sweeter, not 'special, unnatural' fructose. Fructose is fructose.

I'd buy your "enzymes and minerals and vitamins" changing the digestion process..... If we were talking about someone whose diet was restricted to fructose alone. Not a lot of that going on, so I'm not buying it.

reply to post by Binder


excellent post

yes, the problem is refined sugar

it is more addictive than heroin.

natural sugars are just perfectly fine, naturally.
and have passed the test of time.

oh and if sugar is banned
you won't be able to go back to the Original Sweetener,

Honey


mostly watered down and no pollen these days
and for the most part not the good and natural bee vomit after overindulging in nectar
nowadays it's bee vomit after overindulging in the contents of discarded coffee cups or cans of soda pop

and soon there won't be even bees...

betcha monsanto has a hand in this

Originally posted by butcherguy

Natural forms of fructose also come with enzymes and minerals and vitamins that change the digestion process whereas HFCS creates "reactive carbonyls" because the fructose is not bonded molecularly to the glucose. So the fructose is twice as sweet compared to natural fructose bonded to glucose.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

You should read something other than propaganda sometime.

The reason that high fructose corn syrup is high fructose is because ordinary corn syrup does not taste as sweet. It is fructose that makes it sweeter, not 'special, unnatural' fructose. Fructose is fructose.

I'd buy your "enzymes and minerals and vitamins" changing the digestion process..... If we were talking about someone whose diet was restricted to fructose alone. Not a lot of that going on, so I'm not buying it.

HFCS is not the same as sucrose!

The Corn Refiners Association and other special interest groups rebut the idea that theres anything wrong with HFCS. They claim theres no difference between HFCS and table sugar because both are made up of about 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose. They are wrong, says Bray. As he explains, HFCS is a solution with fructose and glucose as separate molecules, whereas sucrose -again, thats table sugar- is a single molecule coupling fructose and glucose. Because of this, there are twice as many molecules of sweetener in a 10 percent solution of HFCS as in a 10 percent solution of sugar.

Soda Warning? High-Fructose Corn Syrup Linked To Diabetes, New Study Suggests

In the current study, Chi-Tang Ho, Ph.D., conducted chemical tests among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS. He found 'astonishingly high' levels of reactive carbonyls in those beverages. These undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with "unbound" fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause tissue damage, says Ho, a professor of food science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are "bound" and chemically stable, the researcher notes. Reactive carbonyls also are elevated in the blood of individuals with diabetes and linked to the complications of that disease. Based on the study data, Ho estimates that a single can of soda contains about five times the concentration of reactive carbonyls than the concentration found in the blood of an adult person with diabetes.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

Please provide the names of 3 people who developed diabetes because of HFCS along with the medical proof that distinguishes this case of diabetes from other types of diabetes.

Tired of Control Freaks

Dr. Stephen W. Ponder of the Children’s Diabetes & Endochrine Center at Children’s Hospital in Corpus Christi, Texas calls type-2 diabetes the ‘family disease of the 21st century.’ He also makes the connection between the out of control childhood obesity rate of the last 30 years with the arrival of HFCS on supermarket shelves in 1975. Our vehicles have gotten bigger as well during the same time period to make room for those SUV-sized fast food sandwiches and their ‘little’ consumers. Dr. Ponder explains that our food system has become convenient, pre-packaged, engineered to be tasty, enriched, refined, and, most of all, CHEAP! Better food requires more prep time, may be harder to find (especially in poorer neighborhoods), and can be more expensive than energy-dense processed foods. The young are falling victim to HFCS.

Children of the Corn Sugar

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


No - I didn't not ask for generic studies and suppositions. You stated that HFCS CAUSES diabetes. Please provide the names of 3 people who developed diabetes as a direct consequence of HFCS.

What does diabetes caused by HFCS look like and how is it different than diabetes caused by genetics? By what biological pathway does this disease occur?

Don't give me epidimiology with studies that "suggest" that there may be a "link" and a possible "association"and opinions. Give me the names of 3 people who have diabetes as a direct result of HFCS and how it is known that this specific case of diabetes is different from other cases of diabetes so that we will know that HFCS caused those 3 specific cases of diabetes.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


it facilitates the development of diabetes.
especially the current diet that is 95% hfcs containing.

we know that smoking facilitates lung cancer in may cases, it is not actually proven.
get of your high horse.