It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sugar Should Be Regulated As Toxin, Researchers Say

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
No... we don't need refined sugars.

Yes, refined sugars are evil.

But everyone still ignores the real reason behind the obesity epidemic> bisphenol A


One of the chemicals under scrutiny is Bisphenol A, or BPA, an ingredient in polycarbonate plastics. Past research has found evidence that it leaches from plastic food containers and bottles, from plastic wrap and from the resin that lines food cans. It has been found in a large percentage of people examined in developed countries. Besides urine and blood, it has been noted in amniotic fluid, placenta, umbilical cord blood and breast milk. Laboratory experiments have found that BPA can increase the production of fat cells.

www.sciencedaily.com...


Look around you and see how much plastic is within an arms reach, no matter where you sit in your houses, schools, libraries or places of work.


Sorry Masqua - missed this one. S&


BTW - did you know Canada at least finally started regulating BPA - so manufacturers switched to BPX - same thing, one molecular tweak. lol

Also - there are at least 25 other documented obesogens besides BPA - but the blame-game rules demand people prove absolutely that these chemicals are harmful, NOT that industry prove they're safe. Funny thing, industry just can't duplicate research showing the harmful effects - their results are always different.




posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I am guessing that Monsanto and other HFCS producers are behind this hogwash.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Just another example of the gubment reaching into your life to tell you what is best. I think we need about 50 or so new departments to regulate this new public threat.

I've pooped the bed and don't know what to do. Tell me, nanny state!



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


While I agree with the OP mostly after some clarification that unprocessed whole foods are indeed MUCH better for you than processed crap. You are arguing with someone with a medical degree. I understand metabolism, catabolism, anabolism, and the krebs cycle, ATP production, glycolysis, gluconeogenesis, etc... IN DEPTH!!!

All those other sugars are catabolised to GLUCOSE, that is the only sugar bioavailable to the body for use. Have you ever heard of a blood fructose level? NO, because the only sugar in systemic circulation is glucose. Sugar doesn't go through the liver?! OMG, then please re-educate me in what the portal process in hepatic function is I guess I slept through that semester. The liver stores sugar as glucagon within the liver. The pancrease produces insulin within the islets of langerhans in direct response to glucose levels in the blood. These are all part of the hepatic system. While some sugars are harder to catabolize, and do produce other byproducts it ALL ends up as glucose before cellular consumption. Only glucose can cross the cellular membrane with the aid of insulin. Fructose, sucrose, galactose etc... are all the wrong shape.

Your body cannot manufacture glucose from the components of protein in any way shape or form. It can produce ketone bodies from protein, but that's a whole other animal. ketones can cross the cellular membrane without the aid of insulin. I think you guys are confusing normal carbohydrate metabolism, ketosis lipolysis, and ketoacidosis. While your main point has validity you are dead wrong on the finer points of how, and why. If you want to argue the point we can take it to the cellular level, and I can school you on cellular respiration, but it will take about 2 years to get you to my level of comprehension in the matter.

You can drastically reduce your glycemic intake. This would include all forms of carbohydrates, and sugars, processed or otherwise, and put your body into a modified state of ketosis lipolysis. This state is relatively safe as long as you consume enough food that can be converted to glucose because the body CANNOT manufacture it on its own, to run your central nervous system because the CNS only runs on glucose, nothing else will work. The whole remainder of your body will happily putter along on ketones, and doesn't care. It uses one as efficiently as the other, but the brain cannot utilize ketones. You must supply it with enough sufficiently glycemic food to meet its needs or you will die. All carboyhydrates end up as glucose, alcohol ends up as glucose. Google ethanol metabolism if you don't believe me, or read a biochemistry book. But don't put on airs that you guys are nutritionist gurus when you don't even have a grasp on the fundamental concepts.

Yes getting your glucose from complex carbohydrates because of their latent nutrient density is nutritionally sound advice. To say consuming concentrated sugars is inherently bad is a flawed statement. Over consumption of anything is bad. Foods with a high glycemic index, and low nutrient density should be consumed very conservatively. Avoiding them altogether would garner no real benefit, but would cause no detriment either.

Put another way over consumption of concentrated sweets would be like running your car on nitrous oxide all the time. Tons of quick fast powerful fuel, but you really can't use it all. The excess is stored. The storage mechanisms are very complex, and cannot be explained or grasped in a 5 minute video. Glucose is high octane for the body, but with no "additives" no protection, no building blocks to repair, remodel, and rebuild. If you can burn it all, no harm done, but concentrated sweets are powerful fuel, and we are a sedentary culture now. It isn't that it is "toxic", it is excessive. If you run marathons then you could afford to consume more glycemic foods right before a race. Its called carb loading. If you are an office worker then you'll never burn off that milk shake in your whole weeks worth of physical output.

If you're going to argue a point get the facts straight, or just say "I'm not really sure, but my understanding is..." Statements like "The body makes it's own sugar." or "Sugar has nothing to do with the liver." make it abundantly apparent you have only partial, and incorrect recall of information fed to you from a source attenuated to a layman's understanding. You're arguing snippets, and talking points from elementary sources with a versed, and formally educated professional. I can't really even debate this with you because the cycles, reactions, and terminology would be completely foreign to you.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I haven't read all of the comments yet but here's some food for thought

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds!

counting calories is key, according to this professor!

on topic: no I don't think sugar should be regulated, people should just be more aware that sugar (like everything else) is toxic in large quantities
edit on 2-2-2012 by lurker007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Binder
 



Statements like "The body makes it's own sugar." or "Sugar has nothing to do with the liver." make it abundantly apparent you have only partial, and incorrect recall of information fed to you from a source attenuated to a layman's understanding.


I didn't say that. I think it's pretty apparent you didn't read what I said.
edit on 2-2-2012 by antonia because: rawr





If you want to argue the point we can take it to the cellular level, and I can school you on cellular respiration, but it will take about 2 years to get you to my level of comprehension in the matter.


Then don't and continue being your elitist self. i didn't proclaim to be anything.
edit on 2-2-2012 by antonia because: forgot something





Sugar doesn't go through the liver?!


Didn't say that either.
edit on 2-2-2012 by antonia because: rawr



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I think this thread is totally off-topic

The question isn't whether sugar is good or bad for you. The question is "should sugar consumption be regulated by the government".

I would like to contribute the following facts

1. Smoking was "denormalized" as the result of a marketing campaign largely funded by Johnson and Johnson through the Robert Wood Foundation.
2. Anti-smoking really took off right when Johnson and Johnson obtained the rights to market nicotine replacement therapies (patches, gums what have you)
3. The support for anti-smoking marketing is provided by what another poster called "welfare scientists" doing "welfare studies).
4. Johnson and Johnson has acquired the rights to market Splenda
5. Much of the anti-obesity campaign marketing is supported by the same "welfare scientists" doing the same type of welfare studies.

Do we see a connection here? Does Johnson and Johnson have an obesity drug in the pipeline to "solve" the obesity crisis?

Tired of Control freaks.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
DROP THE PEANUT BUTTER CUP SCUMBAG!!
Dispatch be advised I have a minor in custody for posession...please send cps...
If they control it, I will refine it and become the next old man Kennedy.
Heck, I may even get into the hard stuff and become a beekeper...



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
FACT: The human body doesn't need SUGAR. It makes its own. Thank you!
FACT 2: SUGAR rich foods contain very low nutritional value.
FACT 3: SUGARY foods are enzyme poor, making the body unable to process is well.
FACT 4: SUGARY foods, when processed convert mainly to fat, taking along any LOVE aka added chemicals with them, and storing it. To be used another day, or perhaps poisoning YOU!
FACT 5: If it look, smells, and behaves like poison (chemically), it IS most likely poison. This is an expression BTW.

As for regulation, not sure.
But I dare anyone to challenge those FACTS.
edit on 2-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


FACT 6: Sugar is delicious.

No more regulations, especially not on the few enjoyable things we still have. I'm quite fed up with being told what I can and cannot ingest. Are our bodies really so precious that we must sacrifice all worldly pleasures for the sake of living a longer, emptier life?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


May I also remind people that food isn't just about feeding your body and providing it with the required quality and quantity of nutrients. Food is also about feeding your soul.

Also sugar is an important and natural food preservative.

Tired of Control Freaks.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Binder
 

wow are you seriously a medical professional?
You write:


This state is relatively safe as long as you consume enough food that can be converted to glucose because the body CANNOT manufacture it on its own, to run your central nervous system because the CNS only runs on glucose, nothing else will work.

YES your body can produce glucose from FAT (1o%), PROTEIN 58% AND CARBS.
If you are not eating, which you imply, you will starve. Wow, what an observation. Do they give out medical degrees fro such insightful knowledge nowadays?
Anyway wise guy, WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK PRODUCES GLUCOSE IN YOUR BODY?
God, fda?
What gives?
Your body does, didn't you learn anything in medical school?
Or is this the medical school of creationism?
Do you really think refined processed carbs are needed not to die, as you imply?
Maybe you should bring out the scientific lingo, some of us can understand it.
Your body needs not excess sugar, all is derived from carbs, proteins and fats.
Is that hard to understand?
I havent eaten sugar or salt for years. No refined sugar, only that which is found in unprocessed whole foods, as god or the universe intended.
Am I dead?
Am I in heaven?


Obviously this was referencing processed and totally unnecessary refined sugars and carbs.
DUH.
You seriously misrepresent.
How the hell did we survive 199.9OO years without processed refined carbs?
Tell me!


edit on 2-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 



How the hell did we survive 199.9OO years without processed refined carbs? Tell me!
How? For most of those years....

By living to the ripe old age of 28 years. Increased technology and medical knowledge kind of offset the terrible carb thingy.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by BBalazs
 



How the hell did we survive 199.9OO years without processed refined carbs? Tell me!
How? For most of those years....

By living to the ripe old age of 28 years. Increased technology and medical knowledge kind of offset the terrible carb thingy.



Uh no, he is discussing simple carbs. Simple carbs are hard to find in nature, most carbs are complex. Things such as brown rice and millet. Even the carbs we farmed all those years ago were complex. A diet rich in simple carbs is a very new development.
edit on 2-2-2012 by antonia because: opps



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by BBalazs
 



How the hell did we survive 199.9OO years without processed refined carbs? Tell me!
How? For most of those years....

By living to the ripe old age of 28 years. Increased technology and medical knowledge kind of offset the terrible carb thingy.



Uh no, he is discussing simple carbs. Simple carbs are hard to find in nature, most carbs are complex. Things such as brown rice and millet. Even the carbs we farmed all those years ago were complex. A diet rich in simple carbs is a very new development.
edit on 2-2-2012 by antonia because: opps

Sorry Antonia, the poster was clear in the reference to refined carbs.
That is exactly what I was referring to when I said 'terrible carbs'. I didn't realize it would be so hard to follow.

My point is that we STILL live longer today even though we eat all those simple carbs that aren't found in nature.

His question was "How the hell did we survive 199.9OO years without processed refined carbs? Tell me!"

I am saying that we survived, but not to a very old age.

I say that all the 'Nutrafiends' out there can worry about your own health, not mine.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 


Actually, if you look into the biochemistry of how sucrose is metabolized.. We see a metabolic path way that is more comparable to alcohol.

And alcohol is metabolized as a poison.

Though comments for the rest of the thread.. I don't know whether regulation is key. I don't foresee it being a feasible reality. However, Removing excess sugar from your diet will be entirely more healthy.. It is simply incredible the way in which sugar is added to foods in America. It's not just the sodas, cookies, candy.. If you look at some brand name flavored yogurt it will have roughly the same amounts of sugar that you would get in an 8 oz. serving of coca cola. Give or take a few grams.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
My response was directed equally between you, and the OP, I see now that, that was a bit ambiguous. So let's break it down. My quotes were a paraphrase from memory you did not say "nothing to do with." you said "does not hit." the liver. If you want to split hairs. So we'll break it down.

"That is not true."- ( according to Brunner's and Suddarth's which is a highly accredited medical curriculum it is absolutely true, almost ver batim.)

"The confusion comes from the fact there are different kinds of sugars." - (No confusion here.)

"Glucose is one kind of sugar, it metabolizes a specific way in the body." - (Yes, it is the most simple sugar.)

"Fructose and Suracose(sucralose) are the other kinds of sugar." - (along with Fructose, galactose, maltodextrine, and a couple dozen more sugars, and sugar alcohols. All of which by the way are catabolized by the body to their most simple form... glucose)

"The(y) metabolize differently than Glucose." (Yep)

"Glucose never hits the liver, the other two do." - (absolutely, unequivicably false... not even close.) I will let a doctor explain it to you.(Attenuated knowledge. My job is to catch, and correct doctors in their mistakes all day.)

"So yes, certain kinds of sugar are toxic." - (Most laymen do not even know what "toxic" means. It is a catch all term for "bad" in modern vernacular. Toxic means "readily absorbed by skin or mucosa." By definition water is "toxic".)

"They metabolize the same way as alcohol" - (not even close to true. Again read up on ethanol metabolism)

" which everyone knows will kill you if you drink too much." - (Yes, just like too much oxygen, or water, or sunlight will kill you.)

"Eating added sugars causes the same long term effects as long term alcohol exposure." - (Not true, again not even in the ballpark. Sugar/carbohydrate[simple, or complex] over-consumption can cause obesity, fatty liver, diabetes, and coagulopathies, and a bunch of other stuff. Alcohol over-consumption can cause liver cirrhosis, loss of intrinsic factor leading to hepatic encephalopathy, and some other stuff. The two etiologies are in no way related)

"As for regulation-Stop corn subsides." - (agreed)



You may think of me as elitist, but if well educated equals elitist, I guess I'm guilty as charged. I don't know of many "elites" that dedicate their lives to the elimination of human suffering though. Your goal, and end point is valid. Your rationale is completely wrong. You have a vague, yet partially correct concept of what to do, but no idea why you should do it. I'm not trying to say you're dumb. Your area of experience varies from mine. I'm saying - don't argue with a professional in area that you are an amateur. Just trust me that concentrated sweets in moderation are not bad, but in excess they are bad, just like moderate alcohol consumtion is not bad, and moderate sunlight exposure is not bad, but in excess anything is bad. To label this that and the other as "toxic", and "evil" is just emotional hyperbole, and scare tactics to promote your personal bias. Everything in moderation, including moderation. An double fudge ice cream cone once a month will not harm you at all, and might even lift your spirits, and reduce stress, and stress will kill you far faster than concentrated sugars will.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
ezinearticles.com...


What happens when the glucose levels exceed or do not meet the normal ranges? An excess of sugar in the blood is called hyperglycemia, which has a level of 109 mg/dL after an 8-hour fasting. A level of below 70 to 60 mg/dL is called hypoglycemia, which is relatively more dangerous than having an excess of sugar in the blood. Remember that the body and brain need glucose to function properly

.....It is important for everybody to watch out symptoms such as drowsiness, lethargy, blurry vision, dehydration, and fungal infections. These could be related to either hyper- or hypoglycemia. These conditions do not always point to diabetes, but could be coupled with other symptoms to determine other chronic illnesses like liver and heart disease and possibly eating disorders.


Brain function.

I knew that was the real deal here. Since sugar is good for you and you need what your body needs, if your not addicted to fast foods, and only eat sweets when your body becomes a bear and craves honey. Sugar has nothing wrong with it save for the chemical processes. Organic is best but most can't afford this, they just want the food industry to provide ample inexpensive foods with No Poisons. Simple.

Seems the bad sugars are corn syrups. They put those in to save money.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by j4k3h
 


Actually it depends on what sugars we are discussing, because pure (Delicious) sugar in considerable amounts is healthy..in fact it's found in all fruits, and some vegetables, and in other natural sources. These spineless leaders of ours, just don't want us to be healthy and in fit form to turn the tides.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I have seen a lot of posters mention that high fructose corn syrup is so much worse for a person's health than other sugars, but I have yet to see the reasoning behind it.

High fructose corn syrup and honey have a very similar make-up regarding the sugars that they are composed of, yet I don't see any concern over honey killing us.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I strongly agree with the 2nd poster in this thread: fresh foods are WAY more expensive then the ones loaded in sugar, salt and preservatives. I can go to the supermarket and buy frozen, prepared foods for half the price it would cost me to buy fresh raw products to cook my OWN foods.
Its sickening really.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join