Sugar is good. The sugar conspiracy scam hoax

[Bubu]

suprise!! not really on Avalon it is normal for a generally accepted principle to be debunked. Let me try to pull this one


Pro sugar argument

Argument 1. My experience-I copy pasted this from my comment on 143 resons .... I consume lots of sugar and I mean lots of it. No one in the family, my family as a child and as a parent consumes sugar much as I do. The irony is that all of my brothers 3 of them are diabetic and has high blood P. I have none of these and never did. I have non of the illnesses listed above. I am hyper acidic though and after reading sugar is the cause I stop consuming sugar however the hyper acidity persist so go back to sugar again. But now I use sugar that is made by distilling sugar cane juice nothing is added except some wood ash to collect the scum.
Much has been written against sugar that I am beginning to think that it is very good for health.

Argument 2. Mainstream demonizes it. No different than radiation, borax and the rest.

Argument 3. We have good sensory that we can sense by smell taste hear sight touch what’s not good for our body. Normally our instinct tells us what’s good for us. The senses of all the Avalonians all saying in unison that sugar is good surely can’t be wrong. It is so good to our senses that we even make sweetheart out of it. Try eating wheat or rice alone? What does our body tells us? Fact is we cannot eat rice alone without adding some viand or salt because our senses tells us that there is nothing to it, empty, garbage. Perhaps we should take “looking into inner self” in a new perspective. And I am willing to bet that this higher self soul complexity etc is part of the scams to prevent us from seeing the obvious using a mere common sense. Sure we have a higher consciousness it is a simple instinct nothing more and we must learn to differentiate it’s application into that simple common sense.

When we crave for potato chip it’s the salt that our body wants not the potato.

A cousin who use to work on a sugar refinery and who does not know anything about conspiracies, tells me that they use to put a very small amount of mercury to refine sugar. Scares the hell of me. From that time onwards I never touch sugar again. So you see why you felt good after discontinuing sugar? And there are also the anti-caking agents and who knows what else. Mind you sugar refineries are huge corporation and most probably subsidized or owned by guess who? Just like the media and cigar.
Now our family consume natural sugar cane sweetener. Made by boiling water off the cane juice until it turns hard. Comes in the shape of coconut shell or rocks and sand. Not granulated because there are no anti caking agents added. Comes from sugar cane farmers who do the processing themselves cost 28% more than big corp sugar. But distinctively delicious. My children even commented that our sugar is delicious upon tasting it. The big corp sugar that they have become used to before had no taste other than sweetness. I recook it and add some water to syrup consistency so we can use it with ease.

The sugar conspiracy idea.
Sugar is irresistible so it would be logical to add poison to it. Demonized sugar all together so that there would be no attempt to make organic sugar. After all it’s bad organic or not. But since it is irresistible and made readily available and cheap by big corp. we continue consuming their poisoned sugar.
Brilliant!! not so, as you can see we Avalonians are dismantling every single scam one at a time.

I’ll stick with my organic sweetener. I use to dip bananas in syrup and add syrup to passion fruit, papaya etc. That’s a lot of sugar for me….I’m in top shape. Well except for the hyper acidity which is not cause by sugar anyway.

scam pattern; irresistibly good, demonized, but made available poisoned version.

Take note of the pattern because more will come.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) trying to counterfeit the natural response to sugar.
thanks for thread

~truebeliever

[JohnEAngel]

well beside the knowledge that there is no actual good or bad, anything you ingest in excess has the potential to cause harm. even water. as i am sure that conspiracies or scams, including medical science abound in our world i can't imagine one of them being sugar. but hey i could be wrong about that. i just don't see how it would benefit any conspirators or scammers.

[Ivanhoe]

Sugar beet is a good form of natural sweetner also.
Juice it then let the water evaporate from the juice and crush it up.

[Bubu]

well beside the knowledge that there is no actual good or bad, anything you ingest in excess has the potential to cause harm. even water. as i am sure that conspiracies or scams, including medical science abound in our world i can't imagine one of them being sugar. but hey i could be wrong about that. i just don't see how it would benefit any conspirators or scammers.

weak people= easier to control
sick people= more big pharma revenue etc.

same reason as chem trail monsanto and the rest

[Bill Ryan]

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/alicegwalton/files/2012/08/nursing-your-sweet-tooth4.jpg

[Bubu]

Please take note we are talking of the real unadulterated sugar not the poisoned version

but as we can see even if the sugar is demonized we still consume lots of them, the poisoned version of course, What shall we do if an irresistible temptation lies beside us right there in every vending machine?

[RunningDeer]

Why do we have cravings?

Eat, Taste, Heal (http://www.eattasteheal.com/ETH_6tastes.htm):

“Ayurvedic [and macrobiotic] nutrition recommends including all 6 tastes in each meal, while favoring those tastes that bring greater balance to your particular constitution.”

Six tastes are: sweet, sour, salty, bitter, pungent and astringent

When folks go to the movies, they order pop corn and soda. In effect, one balances out the other. Imbalance over time takes a toll on the body. Energy for spiritual maturation gets restricted so it can bring the body back to homeostasis.


http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii610/WhiteCrowBlackDeer/Foods/six_tastes_zps5159ac6a.png

This chart below shows sugar is a Yin Acid ‘food’.


http://avalonlibrary.net/paula/Foods/Yin_zpscbbd9807.JPG


"Basic Macrobiotics," by Herman Aihara, 1985.

Question: What are the psychological effect from eating too much sugar? Sugar is a Yin Acid food.

How to Balance Yin and Yang - Page 28

Yin foods have a tendency to cool the body, loosen muscles, reduce tension, slow down movement, prolong sleeping time, and cause excretion to be loose and have less color. If eaten in excess for you condition they make you tired, cause anemia, paleness, loss of appetite, and slowness in speaking. If you have a yin condition, eating an excess of yin foods will make it worse.

Yang goods have a tendency to warm the body, tighten muscles, cause tension speed up movement, lessen sleeping time, and cause excretion to be harder and darker, When taken in excess they can cause fever, a reddish face, constipation, and rapid speech.

In terms of our mentality, yin foods tend to cause yin emotions and thinking such as fear, suspicion, sentimentality, worry and resentment. Yang foods cause such yang emotions and thinking as hostility, aggressiveness, noisiness, and ruthlessness.

[lunaflare]

yes, bubu, natural, unprocessed sugars are a-ok. The 80 percent alkaline and 20 percent acidic approach to food makes sense for human health. in fact, I believe an alkaline diet creates a more balanced (less war-faring and aggressive) society.

The "demonization" of sugar you write about was perhaps a well devised strategy to introduce aspartame!!
People are waking up to the dangers of this toxic chemical cocktail, however...

[lunaflare]

Also...black coffee and tea without milk are moderate alkaline forming drinks
coffee/tea with milk and sugar, however, are acid forming.
Wine, is acid forming

[delfine]

The reason we´re wired to crave sweet taste, is because, in the case of our hunter-gatherer ancestors, it made sense
because eating the sweet, ripe fruits and berries, secured maximum vitamins and nourishment for the body.
Today our predilection for sweets does not mean greater chance for survival. Rather greater chance for diabetes, cancer, hyper-acidity,candida and the rest of degenerative diseases.

Sugar IS a poison, no matter if it´s extracted with mercury or not. It messes with your bloodsugar-levels, is highly addictive,
and if you eat more than 35 gr. at a setting, it actually "sugar-pickles" your body i.e. turns your body into the same kind of
soft, mushy texture as pickled herring et. al.

[Strat]

When we crave for potato chip it’s the salt that our body wants not the potato.

You very well may be right, I got through school by the skin of my teeth but here's how I understand it. I'm quite sure this will rock the boat but I encourage people to research this themselves, hopefully it'll help someone in the long run:

There are a few hormones (that I'm aware of; ghrelin, adiponectin, peptide YY [PYY]) in the lining of the gut which determine 'satiety' or, when you're full. Different foods release these hormones, which signal the brain, which in turn gives you that 'full' feeling. Protein releases the greatest amount of these hormones (I believe specifically PYY), followed by fat, followed by carbs. This is why you can eat a box of Cheez-It's without hesitation whereas a pork chop or two will fill you up.

Same reason why it's really easy to chomp on bagels or English muffins.

The salt issue isn't a conspiracy but just flat out bad science. Salt intake only increases blood pressure by one cuff and it drops back down when you urinate.

EDIT: Wait, just realized I addressed this from the wrong angle. I should have addressed the fact that the potato chip releases endorphins in the exact same way an opiate does, albeit not as much as a drug. Lots of foods do this to some extent, hence why a proper diet is seemingly impossible for a lot of people. Folks suddenly find themselves missing their 'fix' more or less.

Don't believe me? Try cutting bread from your diet and see how often your brain thinks about it. Then try cutting veggies from your diet. It will be immediately apparent which food group is literally addictive.

For folks who have been eating this way for decades they also dull their neuro..somethings (getting late) which results in a tolerance for lack of a better term. Again, exactly like an opiate. The term 'comfort food' is very accurate.

[Kor]

The problem is fructose. It can’t be used for energy by your body’s cells. It’s therefore not only completely useless for the body, but is also a toxin in high enough amount because the job of the liver is to get rid of it, mainly by transforming it into fat.

Cancer cells thrive and proliferate very well with fructose as their energy source.

And other things....like not suppressing the hunger hormone (ghrelin) so eating at the fast food restaurant can last for ever, it does not raise insulin, leptin so the brain "does not know" you ate something.

[MargueriteBee]

When my sister was alive and had cancer she craved sugar. This year I traded sugar for honey which tastes a lot better and have gone from a size 18 to a 12. I will never go back.

[Valle]

Suger or no Suger? In Sweden we have a very active debate regarding the positive health effects with a low carbohydrate diet..

How to Cure Type 2 Diabetes
zjUdtK6ukqY


The road to diabetes type 2 goes via the metabolic syndrome.. good explanations here:

http://www.diabetesnewsstand.com/vissue/einstein/titlepage.html

[greybeard]

The late Dr Hawkins who had the biggest Psychiatric practise in America at one time would say to a potential patient, phoning for an appointment, who had mental problems.
Stop taking sugar for a month then phone me back.
The great majority of times the mental problem was now non existent.

One of the cancer cures is maple syrup and baking soda---the tumour craves sugar and putting the baking soda in the maple syrup fulls the cancer into taking the baking soda which kills it.
Using cider vinegar also seems to be effective.

Bottom line is taking sugar in any form is not healthy, if your toothless wonder why.

Chris

[araucaria]

Given that Bill's stats are only averages, and so must include quite a sizeable population of sensible sugar users, the true figure for millions of Americans must be even more staggering. No wonder Obamacare is having a rough ride.

[Bubu]

When my sister was alive and had cancer she craved sugar. This year I traded sugar for honey which tastes a lot better and have gone from a size 18 to a 12. I will never go back.

Are you talking of sugar from big corp? or the unadulterated sugar cane juice

[Bubu]

Bottom line is taking sugar in any form is not healthy, if your toothless wonder why.

Chris

Yes but have you been listening to your self or from somewhere. What happened to our inner self or senses. It seems that majority of people nowadays simply pickup something from somewhere and make it a fact. The controllers certainly love love love this,

[Watching from Cyprus]

Sugar is necessary for the brain especially. Sugar and Fat. Un-refined organic cane sugar is fine and much more potent than the white refined poison most people consume.
Good fats are many, but try to stay away from Animal fat including lactose, since we do not need any lactose product from the moment we are off the breast milk.
Cold pressed natural oils such as from Olives and various seeds are excellent and Avocado is extremely good fat.

A wonderful combination that you might try which makes you feel SO good, buy some thin rye crackers (FinnCrisp) spread Avacado on and cover with tomato and sea salt. WOW. It is the combination which is something special...

Love from Peter

[Bubu]

Given that Bill's stats are only averages, .

It's only a publication taken from somewhere without verifying accuracy. Any man can make an stat say that it is the result of multi million research. Guess what it is exactly how the dumbing down is done.

At least I am using my senses.

[Rich]

Sugar is just a plant juice, generally made from sugar cane or sugar beets.
The white sugar has been stripped of all nutrients so it can be compared to
eating white bread (it might also undergo chemical processes that may not be healthy).

The sugar I buy is unrefined mascobado or rapadura which is basically dried
plant juice, it has more minerals than fruit or honey. mascobado (http://www.amazon.com/Alter-Eco-Golden-Unrefined-Mascobado/dp/B002HQVA7M/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1380794315&sr=8-2&keywords=mascobado+sugar)




Another important aspect of natural sugar cane is the balance of the different types of sugars. Raw natural sugar has a balance of sucrose, glucose, and fructose, whereas refined sugars are almost exclusively sucrose (the fructose and glucose have been washed out). The more sucrose, the more it raises your blood sugar.

Source: http://www.processedfreeamerica.org/resources/health-news/405-the-truth-about-evaporated-cane-juice

[Bubu]

The sugar I buy is unrefined mascobado or rapadura which is basically dried
plant juice, it has more minerals than fruit or honey. mascobado (http://www.amazon.com/Alter-Eco-Golden-Unrefined-Mascobado/dp/B002HQVA7M/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1380794315&sr=8-2&keywords=mascobado+sugar)

Yes mascobado is basically what we are using but be careful with your sources because I heard that big corp had their version.

[delfine]

The trouble is when you have an overgrowth of candida ( which most of us have), then it doesn´t matter much if the sugar is unrefined or not. The fungus will immediately turn it into food for itself. This is even the case with most fruits.
Fruits are generally considered super-healthy, but if your digestive system is compromised by candida, the fungus will thrive
on the fructose.

[araucaria]

Given that Bill's stats are only averages, .

It's only a publication taken from somewhere without verifying accuracy. Any man can make an stat say that it is the result of multi million research. Guess what it is exactly how the dumbing down is done.

At least I am using my senses.
You seem to be finding a lot of dumbed down forum members. Where were your senses when you applied to join? :)

[araucaria]

but try to stay away from Animal fat including lactose, since we do not need any lactose product from the moment we are off the breast milk.

Peter, where do you get your calcium from?

[Agape]

It's really bad for you Bubu , if you're overdosing yourself with sugar the hyperacidity you have complained of in other threads will never go , by itself .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar

Raw sugar is 'superfood' in fact , old doctors say that you could basically survive on one spoon ( cube ) of sugar a day for very long time. It was tested by real people in real circumstances , like expeditions , prisons and concentration camps .
One spoon a day, understand ? You may turn malnourished but you will not die. The miracle is in the glucose providing direct, quick nutrition to your brain.
Complicated carbohydrates, fats and proteins maybe all very healthy but they take hours for the body to proceed before they are converted to simple energy units especially those that can pass brain blood barrier .
The sugar monohydrate molecule is very small , travels fast and feeds your brain but your brain, unless you're working on something mentally ( or even physically, real hard ) all day, can't burn all the energy you feed him.

It's reason why so many people experience sugar craving and addiction to sweets, children as adults . In large doses when your organism can not proceed it,
forcing your pancreas to produce more and more insulin , your liver to enlarge , it's simply a poison.
It's very acidic , unlike raw honey which is considered the only 'alkaline sweetener' ( I'm sure there are some more options ) but then again, even honey in high doses is a poison.

Raw sugar is superfood and you should treat it as such. What makes me angry with todays market including the so called 'alternative media' is that they are advertising 'superfoods' , often sold for really big money ,
while in the native countries of those 'superfoods' , native people often work days for few rupees to produce your pounds of super-nut-sesame-chocolate-healthycane-baobab powder- guarana- bar ,
and the Bar is sooooo healthy and tasty that you eat 3 on top of everything else while the 'African shaman' who produced it ( *) could go on the bar for week , laughing at ya' .


Any concentrated superfoods, all inclusive , should be taken as meant, either in circumstances when you don't have access to other foods, when you are fasting and need immediate income of energy ( to save your brain or physical functioning ) ,
or simply, in small amounts.
When you are in nature, eat few nuts, or a fruit, it completely satisfies your taste buds for the day,
unless you are a bee I guess and intend Flying all day and collect pollens, flying is very demanding as far as energy uptake goes so if you intend to exhaust the energy on getting wings and flying around, go ahead .

Otherwise, you're killing yourself and deceiving yourself big way because if you're craving the taste and can't stop it simply means your brain controls have been hacked and are out of control , not telling you what 's good for you.


End-of-discourse-:angel:

[RunningDeer]

This is not a preach on foods. It's information on the why's and how's of food addictions. Below the video was mine account for Ben & Jerry's. Once I understood, I broke the 2-3 pints a week habit that day.


Physically Addictive: Chocolate, Cheese, Meat, and Sugar
5VWi6dXCT7I

Uploaded on Jan 20, 2010

Neal Barnard MD discusses the science behind food additions. Willpower is not to blame: chocolate, cheese, meat, and sugar release opiate-like substances. Dr. Barnard also discusses how industry, aided by government, exploits these natural cravings, pushing us to eat more and more unhealthy foods. A plant-based diet is the solution to avoid many of these problems. Neal Barnard is the founder of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM).



Breaking the Spell and Addiction

I got sick the last two times I ate Ben & Jerry’s. Yip-yip-yeah!!! The body had changed. IMO: so did their recipe.

I watched for a time how one pint triggered another the next day, and then went to three days in a row. These are some articles from Mike Adams @ Natural News (http://www.naturalnews.com) that helped me stop the behavior:

Is ice cream really as addictive as cocaine (http://www.naturalnews.com/037362_ice_cream_addictive_cocaine.html)?:

“(NaturalNews) In March 2012, the British news source, Daily Mail, ran a story that stated ice cream was as addicting as cocaine. The article quoted the well-respected American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which had published a study performed at the Oregon Research Institute just days before.

The clinical study reported that people build up a tolerance to ice cream in the same way they build up a tolerance to addictive drugs such as cocaine. The high fat and sugar content in ice cream causes chemical changes in the brain. When a person overeats fatty and sugary foods, there is a downgrade in the brain's pleasure center.

This tolerance for the food is very similar to what happens to drug addicts. Just as it takes more of the drug to achieve the previous satisfaction level, it also takes more food for the junk food lover to feel satisfied.”


Ben & Jerry's 'natural' ice cream filled with unnatural ingredients (http://www.naturalnews.com/029520_natural_ice_cream.html):

(NaturalNews) Consumer watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is calling out popular ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's for using artificial and chemically-altered ingredients in its "All Natural" premium ice creams. According to CSPI at least 90 percent of the flavors used in "All Natural" Ben & Jerry's ice cream are not actually natural.

Some of these ingredients include corn syrup, alkalized cocoa, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, vanillin, maltodextrin and dextrose, all of which involve some type of chemical processing or are simply artificial. Alkalized cocoa, for instance, involves a chemical process that changes cocoa's natural flavor, texture and chemical structure, as well as eliminates some of its acidity and healthy antioxidant content. And vanillin is just an artificial version of vanilla.

"Ben & Jerry's sylvan labels notwithstanding, these ingredients come from the factory, not the farm. And slapping an 'all natural' label on the products certainly implies that the products are top quality and deserve to fetch a higher price," said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of CSPI. "It's a stretch to call any of [these ingredients] 'natural'."

[Bill Ryan]

Please take note we are talking of the real unadulterated sugar not the poisoned version



Well, if it's poisoned, don't eat it! :)

[conk]

yes, bubu, natural, unprocessed sugars are a-ok. The 80 percent alkaline and 20 percent acidic approach to food makes sense for human health. in fact, I believe an alkaline diet creates a more balanced (less war-faring and aggressive) society.

The "demonization" of sugar you write about was perhaps a well devised strategy to introduce aspartame!!
People are waking up to the dangers of this toxic chemical cocktail, however...

Has everyone on this board gone batsh*t insane?! Sugar is sugar, and as such it is poison to the human body. There is no discussion any longer. The facts scream loudly enough to stifle any argument. It is so utterly beyond my comprehension, trying to understand why any person over the age of a child would support the consumption of sugar! It is delusional thinking to believe un-processed sugar is a-ok. Even sugar in fruit is to be minimized. Sugar is sugar is sugar, and it is not a healthful "food". Never was and never will be.

"But, but, but the body needs sugar". No, it does not. The body makes all the glucose it needs from complex carbs and even proteins.

The leading heart specialists, the ones not married to the drug paradigm, will all tell you that sugar is THE cause of heart disease, PERIOD.

[RunningDeer]

Please take note we are talking of the real unadulterated sugar not the poisoned version


Anything in excess is toxic. Some foods in excess leach minerals from your bones and teeth. Why? Because the body intelligence has balanced requirements for it’s survival.

Annemarie Colbin, “Food and Healing,” page 160 - “These (sugar) create an acid reaction in the body, and acidity demineralizes the system; this occurs because when sugar is metabolized, it creates various organic acids. Sugar intake also alters the calcium-phosphorus ratio in the blood by causing the phosphorus level to drop. When not enough of the latter is present, clacium cannot be absorbed the the body.”

Another example of how and why depletion and redistribution that causes an imbalance to homeostasis. It demonstrates the importance of correct intake from even “healthy foods”:

Annemarie Colbin, “Food and Healing,” page 177 - “...Nightshade foods may subtly remove calcium from the bones and deposit it in the joints, kidneys, arteries, and other areas of the body where it does not belong.”

[RunningDeer]

Great post by meeradas over @ the "Here and Now". :wave:


Top notch hypocrisy:

zybnaPqzJ6s

Better version:

bHhCP5ad-zM

[Bill Ryan]

-------

Sugar Blues, by William Dufty:

http://projectavalon.net/Sugar_Blues_William_Dufty.pdf

http://projectavalon.net/Sugar_Blues_William_Dufty_cover.jpg

[RunningDeer]

-------

Sugar Blues, by William Dufty:

http://projectavalon.net/Sugar_Blues_William_Dufty.pdf


http://projectavalon.net/Sugar_Blues_William_Dufty_cover.jpg

Great book. Different cover. Back in the day, it was one of my personal resource books for my students.

[Ultima Thule]

To be to exact: glucose is important for the brain, not sugar. What is usually termed sugar is sucrose ie glucose-fructose disaccharide. Brain can also very well cope with ketones if glucose is not available.

Analogies to consider:
Glucose is fuel - eat more than you need and it´s like filling your car with the gas tank expanding. Fuel is still usable.
Sugar ie glucose-fructose - eat this and it is like filling up your car with the gas tank expanding but gasoline is also poured into the trunk and a motor control chip is installed which hinders the performance of the car and reroutes the gas to be stored in wrong places.
High Fructose Corn Syrup - same as the former, but on steroids.

Also it is good to remind oneself that we are not equal, other people are more inclined to develope instantaneous seasonal insulin resistance - as Robert Lustig has ingeniously coined it - which is a brilliant thing to be able to do, it really helped one to put on fat to survive the winter. This would be highly inheritable quality and a smart thing. The problem is that our nutrition is based on autumn-menu. Spring-time-menu is therefore in short the antidote. A lot of veggies from above the ground level, meat, fat, but no fruits.

Huge subject, youtube Robert Lustig, Gary Taubes among others and the distinct differences between monosaccharides will emerge.

UT

[Strat]

One must understand the intimate link between carbs and sugars. Some of my favorite members here are vegetarians. Please, please understand I don't mean to ruffle yalls feathers. To quote Dan Burisch (paraphrased), "I'm just stating the science as I know it to be true."

Carbs are all around us, tree bark, grass, etc and edible foods all have carbs which are made up of monosaccharides (mono=one sacchar=sugar). The two key players are glucose (naturally occurs in the body, is secreted by the liver and is fuel for the brain and blood cells) and fructose.

We also have disaccharides (two sugars) which is the kind of sugar one buys in the store.

There's also polysaccharides (many sugars). These are indigestible carbs such as fiber and digestible carbs such as potatoes, rice, corn, etc. I would never judge people for their diet, or dictate what people eat, just keep in mind that complex carbs are literally constructed of 'many sugars.' Upon digestion it reverts to sugars.

Now insulin comes into play. It regulates sugars and amino acids (protein), it's a nutrient storage hormone released by the pancreas. Upon excessive sugar (carb) intake the body has no other option than to store it.

Hence:


I traded sugar for honey which tastes a lot better and have gone from a size 18 to a 12. I will never go back.

In regards to all sugars being bad, I generally agree, but if it wasn't for the liver secreting glucose we would literally die.

[Camilo]

You've got to be kidding!

[araucaria]

Speculating on sugar
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078338/combined


Depardieu at his best in a financial disaster

http://i.media-imdb.com/images/showtimes/90.gif
Author: Julien C (http://www.imdb.com/user/ur10676347/) from Belgium
18 May 2006
The best movie I can remember with Depardieu.

The plot is really good: talking about how one influent person can make the curves of the sugar rocket up artificially on the stock market whereas on the other side of the power a dumb ass losses all his money when the market crash down after somebody advised him to invest on sugar.

The two main characters are excellent. It might look a bit overacted sometimes. But it is lovely to see them doing it like that.

I would compare it to other financial movies like "Boillers room", "Wall street" and a book that I really like from Zola: "l'argent" (the money). But it has a ironic french touch in the dialogs that the two American movies don't have.

[Watching from Cyprus]

Araucaria, plenty of calcium in healthy diet, so just eat healthy and dont think about it. Water has plenty of calcium in it, if you drink the minimum 2 liters you have to drink daily :-)

[Ba-ba-Ra]

My Opinion: Every BODY is different - because - every MIND (Consciousness) is different.

What works well for one body (consciousness) will not always work for another body.

It's best to get in touch with your body - and your consciousness (belief systems, thoughts, etc).

Live thoughtfully = be aware of what you are putting into your body and how often . . . . and how you feel after you eat it. In other words: eat mindfully, live mindfully - and your body and mind will thrive.

[Strat]

My Opinion: Every BODY is different - because - every MIND (Consciousness) is different.

What works well for one body (consciousness) will not always work for another body.

It's best to get in touch with your body - and your consciousness (belief systems, thoughts, etc).

Live thoughtfully = be aware of what you are putting into your body and how often . . . . and how you feel after you eat it. In other words: eat mindfully, live mindfully - and your body and mind will thrive.


I agree 100%

Fish is regarded as a very healthy food, however some people are so allergic to it that their throat swells and they have to be rushed to the hospital. Same with peanuts.

[araucaria]

Araucaria, plenty of calcium in healthy diet, so just eat healthy and dont think about it. Water has plenty of calcium in it, if you drink the minimum 2 liters you have to drink daily :-)
Not here: 2 liters would barely cover half your daily requirement.
http://www.doctissimo.fr/html/nutrition/dossiers/eau/articles/13254-calcium.htm

[Bubu]

Given that Bill's stats are only averages, .

It's only a publication taken from somewhere without verifying accuracy. Any man can make an stat say that it is the result of multi million research. Guess what it is exactly how the dumbing down is done.

At least I am using my senses.
You seem to be finding a lot of dumbed down forum members. Where were your senses when you applied to join? :)

As a matter of fact yes, and that includes me too.

The illusion of knowing feeds ignornce

[Eram]

Given that Bill's stats are only averages, .

It's only a publication taken from somewhere without verifying accuracy. Any man can make an stat say that it is the result of multi million research. Guess what it is exactly how the dumbing down is done.

At least I am using my senses.

The truth of the matter is:

Every substance is toxic.
It is the amount of intake that determines whether or not it is toxic to the body.

Swallow 40 litres of water in one day and you'll see the next life for sure.

Consume more then a tablespoon of sugar a day and you'll find that your body becomes acidic (exactly what you observed yourself) among many other things that will change in your body.

An acidic body will lead you down a road of attraction of fungi and parasites, create a living ground for cancer, burn your glands over the years and accelerate your ageing process to name a few.


Yes, sugar is good for you..... if you take it in small amounts (lets say 1/2 teaspoon a day).


wake up Bubu :)

[seehas]

the fact that nearly everything today contains sugar should shake us allready, for me its part of the poisoning that is done to humans by the elite and i try to run realy low on sugar but its not easy because sometimes you dont even know its in a product.

the coin of softdrink im producing at home is self made tea with honey tastes alot better than coke if you ask me :P

use HONEY instead of sugar !

[araucaria]

Given that Bill's stats are only averages, .

It's only a publication taken from somewhere without verifying accuracy. Any man can make an stat say that it is the result of multi million research. Guess what it is exactly how the dumbing down is done.

At least I am using my senses.
You seem to be finding a lot of dumbed down forum members. Where were your senses when you applied to join? :)

As a matter of fact yes, and that includes me too.

The illusion of knowing feeds ignornce
Speak for yourself. You are applying this, among other people, to the forum founder. I am asking you: what are you doing here in the first place? :)

Your thinking you know better about sugar is feeding your ignorance.

I would describe what we are trying to do here rather as 'Awareness of the need to learn feeds knowledge'.

Here is one piece of knowledge you might share, which is not a statistic, but a fact: your weight?

:)

[Kor]

where do you get your calcium from?

Calcium ions are important for the body but drinking milk actually increases the chances for osteoporosis (weak bone structure). If need be the products made from milk are still "less bad" than drinking the milk itself.

The better source of it can be whole grains, broccoli, spinach and other leafy vegetables, dried figs, sesame seeds, almonds and also "hard water" - hard due to limestone (not as good for your washing machine but ok for the human).

To preserve you calcium - avoid drinking "overly" carbonated beverages, especially those containing phosphoric acid and tons of sugar. Also avoid charlatans selling you all kinds of "all natural right dosage magical calcium pills" backed by many "true testimonies" about all those lives saved and tears of happiness and such...


Food supplements is a multi billion dollar industry. They do not care about your health. They care about how and what story to sell you, so you will go any buy their wonderful products.

[MargueriteBee]

A little dab of powered stevia on the tongue is so Good!

[araucaria]

Kor, you do what you like, but when Watching from Cyprus says


we do not need any lactose product from the moment we are off the breast milk.

I say that this should come with a public health warning. Some babies are off the breast milk from birth and at that age osteoporosis caused by milk products is hardly an issue. Apart from the alleged poisons, milk has some serious nutritional qualities as well :)

I personally have a rather laid-back attitude to healthy eating and have already outlived by some years my poor sister who was rather fussy about her diet. Why am I not surprised?

[RunningDeer]

Bubu, your posts across time are like the ones here. Know that the only reason for me to post on this thread is not to offer another way for you to see it.

Why’s that? Because I’ve learned your cup runneth over with Bubu.

You are always right, you never acknowledge that maybe, just maybe there’s another way to see it. So why do I bother to expend time and energy? To help cancel out the misinformation. Note: I could be wrong here. I find it’s better for me to skip your posts or do a quick read.

I did a search of your recent posts. What comes to mind is that at the very least you like argument for argument’s sake, the other extreme is you exhibit troll-like qualities.

Time for me to step out of the thread. But first, based on a quick search of just your recent posts and this thread, and here’s my take on my statement “you exhibit troll-like qualities (http://pluperfecter.blogspot.com/2011/08/14-characteristics-of-classic-internet.html)”:

(1) Posts inflammatory comments, not to engage in serious conversation, but to "grief" or annoy an online community.

(2) An obvious glee and elated satisfaction is aroused in them when people join the fight and reply to their deliberately disruptive comments.

(3) Copies and pastes large blocks of text to exhaust the readers of a topic thread, thus driving away legitimate posters of sincere comments. These blocks of text are often recycled and appeared on a variety of threads.

(4) Tends to avoid complimenting people who disagree with them, even when those in opposition to the troll make some valid points.

(5) Shuns any conciliatory statements like "You have obviously spent a lot of time studying this subject, and I'm not certain how to reply to your last remark, so let's shake hands, part as friends, and move on."

(6) Never ends a debate with "Thanks for the discussion" or "I'll consider what you say" or any other finalizing remark, because they love arguing and disrupting civilized conversations.

(7) Keeps an argument going a lot longer than a normal person would, to the point where people will start asking a moderator to turn off comments or block the troll. However, sometimes people will do this just because they can't tolerate contrary opinions and are angry at seeing them posted to a thread they enjoyed reading. The mark of a troll is to keep hammering away at a point in an obsessive manner.

8-15 continued here (http://pluperfecter.blogspot.com/2011/08/14-characteristics-of-classic-internet.html)

Blogocombat means friendly online discussions, as well as heated debates. I use the term "blogocombat" to refer to both. But where the rubber meets the road is when you have to deal with the internet troll.

There are no winners or losers in a civilized discussion. There are just people who express their thoughts and people who learn a bit more about a subject and improve their presentation of ideas by engaging in conversations with worthy opponents.

"Trolling" has nothing to do with sincere expression of contrary opinions or stubborn dedication to an idea. Trolling is all in how the comments are phrased and how the comment poster behaves, especially when confronted.

You know it's an immature attention-getting scheme when they respond quickly to every single comment posted in response to theirs, and their rhetoric tends to escalate in intense hatred, absurd rambling, and malicious provocation.

[Chanlo23]

I can not pledge allegiance to Sugar, Bubu, for I am ever loyal to the Lady Chocolate, who is as superior to it as a god is to a tick.

As first reported by the great intellectual, Woody Allen, in his opus, Sleeper, how could we have survived all these years without hot fudge? Yeah, let us bow before the altar of Chocolate, especially the Dark One, who has smitten even the sternest of scientists in recent studies. Doubt me, ye of little faith? Fear not, for I have scanned the internet for you:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/chocolate-health-benefits_n_1383372.html#slide=818307
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/heart/prevention/nutrition/chocolate.aspx
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diet-and-nutrition/chocolate-guide.htm
http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/chocolate

And, for the chemically-minded, let us ponder on the wonder of the ways that chocolate, particularly dark chocolate, stimulates the production of Oxytocin, the same hormone produced after childbirth to induce bliss and bonding with new infants. And, yeah let me say that chocolate is no one-trick pony, for she also increases serotonin, dopamine, and antioxidants.

And, I say unto you that Chocolate should be named to the Triumvirate of Condiments: Salt, Ketchup, and Chocolate (although I really think she is a basic food group). There is no crappy food dish that can not be made edible by the addition of one of these three (except the one bowl of 100-yr-old fish egged oatmeal I was forced to eat once).

Crave sugar if you must and indulge it at every turn, but as for me, I will not go down the roads of Life or Death without Chocolate in my side.

[778 neighbour of some guy]

Bubu, your posts across time are like the ones here. Know that the only reason for me to post on this thread is not to offer another way for you to see it.

Why’s that? Because I’ve learned your cup is full of Bubu.

You are always right, you never acknowledge that maybe, just maybe there’s another way to see it. So why do I bother to expend time and energy? To help cancel out the misinformation. Note: I could be wrong here. I find it’s better for me to skip your posts or do a quick read.

I did a search of your recent posts. What comes to mind is that at the very least you like argument for argument’s sake, the other extreme is you exhibit troll-like qualities.

Time for me to step out of the thread. But first, based on a quick search of just your recent posts and this thread, and here’s my take on my statement “you exhibit troll-like qualities (http://pluperfecter.blogspot.com/2011/08/14-characteristics-of-classic-internet.html)”:

(1) Posts inflammatory comments, not to engage in serious conversation, but to "grief" or annoy an online community.

(2) An obvious glee and elated satisfaction is aroused in them when people join the fight and reply to their deliberately disruptive comments.

(3) Copies and pastes large blocks of text to exhaust the readers of a topic thread, thus driving away legitimate posters of sincere comments. These blocks of text are often recycled and appeared on a variety of threads.

(4) Tends to avoid complimenting people who disagree with them, even when those in opposition to the troll make some valid points.

(5) Shuns any conciliatory statements like "You have obviously spent a lot of time studying this subject, and I'm not certain how to reply to your last remark, so let's shake hands, part as friends, and move on."

(6) Never ends a debate with "Thanks for the discussion" or "I'll consider what you say" or any other finalizing remark, because they love arguing and disrupting civilized conversations.

(7) Keeps an argument going a lot longer than a normal person would, to the point where people will start asking a moderator to turn off comments or block the troll. However, sometimes people will do this just because they can't tolerate contrary opinions and are angry at seeing them posted to a thread they enjoyed reading. The mark of a troll is to keep hammering away at a point in an obsessive manner.

8-15 continued here (http://pluperfecter.blogspot.com/2011/08/14-characteristics-of-classic-internet.html)

Blogocombat means friendly online discussions, as well as heated debates. I use the term "blogocombat" to refer to both. But where the rubber meets the road is when you have to deal with the internet troll.

There are no winners or losers in a civilized discussion. There are just people who express their thoughts and people who learn a bit more about a subject and improve their presentation of ideas by engaging in conversations with worthy opponents.

"Trolling" has nothing to do with sincere expression of contrary opinions or stubborn dedication to an idea. Trolling is all in how the comments are phrased and how the comment poster behaves, especially when confronted.

You know it's an immature attention-getting scheme when they respond quickly to every single comment posted in response to theirs, and their rhetoric tends to escalate in intense hatred, absurd rambling, and malicious provocation.

From his other thread.


Bubu




Bubu is offline
Philippines
Avalon Member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date:29th May 2013
Age:47
Posts:426
Thanks:946
Thanked 1,241 times in 354 posts



Please please please I'm no couch potato
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHWcm_lwkvg

PS I'm the one with the surf board

Here's the guy with the surf board, looking pretty good for a 47 year old, a perverts dream.

yHWcm_lwkvg

[13th Warrior]

Extracthttp://muscle.ucsd.edu/musintro/jump.shtmlng

Energy from Glucose
Two different pathways are involved in the metabolism of glucose: one anaerobic and one aerobic. The anaerobic process occurs in the cytoplasm and is only moderately efficient. The aerobic cycle takes place in the mitochondria and is results in the greatest release of energy. As the name implies, though, it requires oxygen.
Anaerobic Metabolism
Glucose in the bloodstream diffuses into the cytoplasm and is locked there by phosphorylation. A glucose molecule is then rearranged slightly to fructose and phosphorylated again to fructose diphosphate. These steps actually require energy, in the form of two ATPs per glucose. The fructose is then cleaved to yield two glyceraldehyde phosphates (GPs). In the next steps, energy is finally released, in the form of two ATPs and two NADHs, as the GPs are oxidized to phosphoglycerates. One of the key enzymes in this process is glyceraldehyde phosphate dehydrogenase (GPDH), which transfers a hydrogen atom from the GP to NAD to yield the energeticNADH. Due to its key position in the glycolytic pathway, biochemical assays of GPDH are often used to estimate the glycolytic capacity of a muscle cell. Finally, two more ATPs are produced as the phosphoglycerates are oxidized to pyruvate.

Aerobic Metabolism
Pyruvate is the starting molecule for oxidative phosphorylation via the Krebb's or citric acid cycle. In this process, all of the C-C and C-H bonds of the pyruvate will be transferred to oxygen. The pathway can be seen in the figure below.Basically, the pyruvate is oxidized to acetyl coenzyme A, which can then bind with the four carbon oxaloacetate to generate a six carbon citrate. Carbons and hydrogens are gradually cleaved from this citrate until all that remains is the four carbon oxaloacetate we started with. In the process, four NADHs, one FADH and one GTP are generated for each starting pyruvate.
Energy Accounting
Each NADH will be oxidized to NAD, generating three ATPs (although it "costs" one ATP to transfer the NADHs generated during anaerobic metabolism into the mitochondria for reduction). For each molecule of glucose we can calculate the useable energy produced:
AnaerobicConsumed:2
ATPProduced:8
ATPNet:6
ATPAerobicConsumed:0
ATPProduced:2x 15
ATPNet:30 ATP
Thus, for each glucose that enters the muscle, up to 36 ATPs can be generated. 

Energy From Fatty Acids
Fat molecules consist of three fatty acid chains connected by a glycerol backbone. Fatty acids are basically long chains of carbon and hydrogen and are the major source of energy during normal activities.Fatty acids are broken down by progressively cleaving two carbon bits and converting these to acetyl coenzyme A. The acetyl CoA is the oxidized by the same citric acid cycleinvolved in the metabolism of glucose. For every two carbons in a fatty acid, oxidation yields 5 ATPs generating the acetyl CoA and 12 more ATPs oxidizing the coenzyme. This makes fat a terrific molecule in which to store energy, as the body well knows (much to our dismay).The only biological drawback to this, and other, forms of oxidative metabolism is its dependence on oxygen. Thus, if energy is required more rapidly than oxygen can be delivered, muscles switch to the less efficient anaerobic pathways. Interestingly, this implies that an anaerobic workout will not "burn" any fat, but will preferentially deplete the body of glucose. Of course, your body can't survive very long on just anaerobic metabolism...it just can't generate enough energy.

[Bob]

Probably need to do a post on GLUCOSE TOXICITY and Insulin out-of-balance crisis, pancreatic cancer, etc..

[13th Warrior]

Probably need to do a post on GLUCOSE TOXICITY and Insulin out-of-balance crisis, pancreatic cancer, etc..

There's no probably about it; it essental to knowing if sugar is good/bad for YOU.

[The Truth Is In There]

all sugar is not equal. glucose is good, it's the energy of life. fructose is a poison and is metabolized like alcohol, just without the buzz. it also does the same to the liver upon excess consumption.

depending on their genotype/metabolic profile some people do well with lots of carbs (carbs, not sugar, except pure glucose) others do better with very little. blood type is a good indicator but only one.

at any rate, the fructose part in sugar is toxic to anyone, that's why for example juicing fruits, because it's "healthy", is actually quite stupid. i've mentioned this in a thread about juicing and of course it was ignored. some people need to learn the hard way. people who believe that "sugar" is good (and most fruits are full of sugar) would do well to watch their triglyceride levels.

those who have a candida infection simply eat too much sugar, especially fructose (probably due to high fruit consumption. again, because it's so "healthy"). candida thrives on fruits. that's not because it is a bad fungus and has to be eliminated but because the body uses the expert help of candida to metabolize the oversupply of fructose. reduce or eliminate the fructose and the candida infection will in most cases disappear like magic.

that cancer cells thrive on sugar is not entirely correct. cancer and sugar consumption have no correlation except the fact that all cells metabolize glucose preferentially. the mechanism how cancer is created doesn't require sugar, nor does "healing" require elimination or reduction of sugar, except for the benefits of fructose reduction/elimination due to its generally negative impact on the organism.

[Watching from Cyprus]

Kor, you do what you like, but when Watching from Cyprus says


we do not need any lactose product from the moment we are off the breast milk.

I say that this should come with a public health warning. Some babies are off the breast milk from birth and at that age osteoporosis caused by milk products is hardly an issue. Apart from the alleged poisons, milk has some serious nutritional qualities as well :)

I personally have a rather laid-back attitude to healthy eating and have already outlived by some years my poor sister who was rather fussy about her diet. Why am I not surprised?

Hi Araucaria.... I drink fresh camel milk once in a while when i visit the emirates (extremely good :-) , and here in Cyprus goats milk when i can get my hands on some. The point is that processes milk is very bad for us, and our babies should breast feed for as long as possible... it is nature. Eggs (free range) are super food in my opinion. the more cholesterol the better as long as you keep away for table salts completely (use on only natural salts such as sea salt), and egg has lots of calcium as well. Love from Peter

[Bill Ryan]

all sugar is not equal. glucose is good, it's the energy of life. fructose is a poison and is metabolized like alcohol, just without the buzz. it also does the same to the liver upon excess consumption.

depending on their genotype/metabolic profile some people do well with lots of carbs (carbs, not sugar, except pure glucose) others do better with very little. blood type is a good indicator but only one.

at any rate, the fructose part in sugar is toxic to anyone, that's why for example juicing fruits, because it's "healthy", is actually quite stupid. i've mentioned this in a thread about juicing and of course it was ignored. some people need to learn the hard way. people who believe that "sugar" is good (and most fruits are full of sugar) would do well to watch their triglyceride levels.

those who have a candida infection simply eat too much sugar, especially fructose (probably due to high fruit consumption. again, because it's so "healthy"). candida thrives on fruits. that's not because it is a bad fungus and has to be eliminated but because the body uses the expert help of candida to metabolize the oversupply of fructose. reduce or eliminate the fructose and the candida infection will in most cases disappear like magic.

that cancer cells thrive on sugar is not entirely correct. cancer and sugar consumption have no correlation except the fact that all cells metabolize glucose preferentially. the mechanism how cancer is created doesn't require sugar, nor does "healing" require elimination or reduction of sugar, except for the benefits of fructose reduction/elimination due to its generally negative impact on the organism.

Acknowledging this post. Here's a very useful reference:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/02/highfructose-corn-syrup-alters-human-metabolism.aspx

Fructose is not a 'poison' per se -- though the point is made:

Extract from the Mercola article (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/02/highfructose-corn-syrup-alters-human-metabolism.aspx) (but do read it all!) -- which probably states it well:




If you received your fructose only from vegetables and fruits (where it originates) as most people did a century ago, you'd consume about 15 grams per day -- a far cry from the 73 grams per day the typical adolescent gets from sweetened drinks. In vegetables and fruits, it's mixed in with fiber, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and beneficial phytonutrients, all which moderate any negative metabolic effects.

It isn't that fructose itself is bad -- it is the MASSIVE DOSES you're exposed to that make it dangerous. There are two reasons fructose is so damaging:


Your body metabolizes fructose in a much different way from glucose. The entire burden of metabolizing fructose falls on your liver.
People are consuming fructose in enormous quantities, which has made the negative effects much more profound.

Today, 55 percent of sweeteners used in food and beverage manufacturing are made from corn, and the number one source of calories in America is soda (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/02/highfructose-corn-syrup-alters-human-metabolism.aspx), in the form of HFCS.

Food and beverage manufacturers began switching their sweeteners from sucrose (table sugar) to corn syrup in the 1970s when they discovered that HFCS was not only far cheaper to make, but is also about 20% sweeter than table sugar. HFCS is either 42% or 55% fructose, and sucrose is 50% fructose, so it's really a wash in terms of sweetness.

Still, this switch drastically altered the average American diet.

By USDA estimates, about one-quarter of the calories consumed by the average American is in the form of added sugars, and most of that is HFCS. The average Westerner consumes a staggering 142 pounds a year of sugar! And the very products most people rely on to lose weight -- the low-fat diet foods -- are often the ones highest in fructose. Making matters worse, all of the fiber has been removed from these processed foods, so there is essentially no nutritive value at all.

[Bill Ryan]

-------

From the excellent Mercola article (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/02/highfructose-corn-syrup-alters-human-metabolism.aspx) quoted in my above post:


http://media.mercola.com/assets/images/infographic/fructose-overload-infographic.jpg

[Carmen]

In another thread of yours Babu, you complain of high acidity. In this thread you mention your diet is high in sugar. There is the cause!

[13th Warrior]

As outlined by Bill and others: you have an over consumption problem, coupled with a lack of physical activity.

Your muscles burn fructose when you exercise in the anaerobic threshold.

Anaerobic MetabolismGlucose in the bloodstream diffuses into the cytoplasm and is locked there by phosphorylation. A glucose molecule is then rearranged slightly to fructose and phosphorylated again to fructose diphosphate.

[lightseeker]

Just last evening I watched a one hour documentary on CBC on the program 5th Estate regarding the poison, SUGAR. It was very well researched as many CBC documentaries are. Whether people are eating white sugar, pure cane sugar makes no difference. It is addictive and most definately can lead to diabetes, cancer, heart disease and dimentia . (sorry for my spelling) Yes I know that we all have cravings for sweet stuff. I do my best to quell the cravings by eating fruit. I don't always win out. I allow myself a piece of chocolate fudge cake once in a blue moon, LOL! .
But yes there are natural sweeteners besides sugar which people can use to feed their sweet addiction. Very intersting topic. See you later, its time for my once in a blue moon piece of chocolate fudge cake.
There is another factor that many have not discussed is the amount of sugar that exists in processed food. Four grams of sugar is equal to one tea spoon full. Look at the labelling on almost every package item you buy; I would guess that almost 95% of all processed foods have sugar listed on their ingrediant labels. If people eat a lot of processed foods, which north americans do, you are most likely eating a hell of a lot of sugar on a daily basis.

[lightseeker]

Sorry folks if my threat above seems a little disjointed I am sorry. I started a thread, had to leave my computer; and lost what I had originally wrote, ( must be the double fudge chocolate cake) affecting my memory. Anyways, I know that this can be a serious topic for some people. But I like to add a little levity, hopefully no one is offended.
Love to all

[onawah]

Paula's post should be framed and mounted on Avalon's permanent wall.


Bubu, your posts across time are like the ones here. Know that the only reason for me to post on this thread is not to offer another way for you to see it.

Why’s that? Because I’ve learned your cup runneth over with Bubu.

You are always right, you never acknowledge that maybe, just maybe there’s another way to see it. So why do I bother to expend time and energy? To help cancel out the misinformation. Note: I could be wrong here. I find it’s better for me to skip your posts or do a quick read.

I did a search of your recent posts. What comes to mind is that at the very least you like argument for argument’s sake, the other extreme is you exhibit troll-like qualities.

Time for me to step out of the thread. But first, based on a quick search of just your recent posts and this thread, and here’s my take on my statement “you exhibit troll-like qualities (http://pluperfecter.blogspot.com/2011/08/14-characteristics-of-classic-internet.html)”:

(1) Posts inflammatory comments, not to engage in serious conversation, but to "grief" or annoy an online community.

(2) An obvious glee and elated satisfaction is aroused in them when people join the fight and reply to their deliberately disruptive comments.

(3) Copies and pastes large blocks of text to exhaust the readers of a topic thread, thus driving away legitimate posters of sincere comments. These blocks of text are often recycled and appeared on a variety of threads.

(4) Tends to avoid complimenting people who disagree with them, even when those in opposition to the troll make some valid points.

(5) Shuns any conciliatory statements like "You have obviously spent a lot of time studying this subject, and I'm not certain how to reply to your last remark, so let's shake hands, part as friends, and move on."

(6) Never ends a debate with "Thanks for the discussion" or "I'll consider what you say" or any other finalizing remark, because they love arguing and disrupting civilized conversations.

(7) Keeps an argument going a lot longer than a normal person would, to the point where people will start asking a moderator to turn off comments or block the troll. However, sometimes people will do this just because they can't tolerate contrary opinions and are angry at seeing them posted to a thread they enjoyed reading. The mark of a troll is to keep hammering away at a point in an obsessive manner.

8-15 continued here (http://pluperfecter.blogspot.com/2011/08/14-characteristics-of-classic-internet.html)

Blogocombat means friendly online discussions, as well as heated debates. I use the term "blogocombat" to refer to both. But where the rubber meets the road is when you have to deal with the internet troll.

There are no winners or losers in a civilized discussion. There are just people who express their thoughts and people who learn a bit more about a subject and improve their presentation of ideas by engaging in conversations with worthy opponents.

"Trolling" has nothing to do with sincere expression of contrary opinions or stubborn dedication to an idea. Trolling is all in how the comments are phrased and how the comment poster behaves, especially when confronted.

You know it's an immature attention-getting scheme when they respond quickly to every single comment posted in response to theirs, and their rhetoric tends to escalate in intense hatred, absurd rambling, and malicious provocation.

Kor wrote:
Calcium ions are important for the body but drinking milk actually increases the chances for osteoporosis (weak bone structure). If need be the products made from milk are still "less bad" than drinking the milk itself.

That's not the case if you are drinking raw, organic milk. Our current epidemic of osteoporosis began with pasteurization and homogenization. Most commercial dairy products like yogurt are worthless because the cultures aren't live or strong enough. Homemade kefir is a miracle food!

Dr. Mercola has been a very good source of information concerning diet. Here's a link to just one article from him about over-consumption of carbohydrates, and the myths concerning low-fat diets:
http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2012/08/10/fat-not-glucose.aspx

As someone with a tendency for Candida overgrowth, I have been looking for a healthy sweetener other than raw honey for some time.
I don't like the taste of Stevia, but date sugar has been working fairly well for me, and I've just ordered some raw Coconut Crystals to try.
If a sweetener is not OK for me to use, I can tell immediately, as it will make me feel fatigued and dopey.
Cane sugar is an absolute no-no for anyone with Candida issues.

[golden wonder]

Hope these links on the subject are of interest.

John Yudkin was ridiculed for his research, but his book remains testimony to yet another truth that in my opinion that was buried under disguise of what is best for the people.

http://darkj-fitness.tumblr.com/post/34915473766/pure-white-deadly-free-download-pdf-this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&feature=youtu.be

[Bubu]

Bubu, your posts across time are like the ones here. Know that the only reason for me to post on this thread is not to offer another way for you to see it.

Why’s that? Because I’ve learned your cup is full of Bubu.

You are always right, you never acknowledge that maybe, just maybe there’s another way to see it. So why do I bother to expend time and energy? To help cancel out the misinformation. Note: I could be wrong here. I find it’s better for me to skip your posts or do a quick read.

I did a search of your recent posts. What comes to mind is that at the very least you like argument for argument’s sake, the other extreme is you exhibit troll-like qualities.

Time for me to step out of the thread. But first, based on a quick search of just your recent posts and this thread, and here’s my take on my statement “you exhibit troll-like qualities (http://pluperfecter.blogspot.com/2011/08/14-characteristics-of-classic-internet.html)”:

(1) Posts inflammatory comments, not to engage in serious conversation, but to "grief" or annoy an online community.

(2) An obvious glee and elated satisfaction is aroused in them when people join the fight and reply to their deliberately disruptive comments.

(3) Copies and pastes large blocks of text to exhaust the readers of a topic thread, thus driving away legitimate posters of sincere comments. These blocks of text are often recycled and appeared on a variety of threads.

(4) Tends to avoid complimenting people who disagree with them, even when those in opposition to the troll make some valid points.

(5) Shuns any conciliatory statements like "You have obviously spent a lot of time studying this subject, and I'm not certain how to reply to your last remark, so let's shake hands, part as friends, and move on."

(6) Never ends a debate with "Thanks for the discussion" or "I'll consider what you say" or any other finalizing remark, because they love arguing and disrupting civilized conversations.

(7) Keeps an argument going a lot longer than a normal person would, to the point where people will start asking a moderator to turn off comments or block the troll. However, sometimes people will do this just because they can't tolerate contrary opinions and are angry at seeing them posted to a thread they enjoyed reading. The mark of a troll is to keep hammering away at a point in an obsessive manner.

8-15 continued here (http://pluperfecter.blogspot.com/2011/08/14-characteristics-of-classic-internet.html)

Blogocombat means friendly online discussions, as well as heated debates. I use the term "blogocombat" to refer to both. But where the rubber meets the road is when you have to deal with the internet troll.

There are no winners or losers in a civilized discussion. There are just people who express their thoughts and people who learn a bit more about a subject and improve their presentation of ideas by engaging in conversations with worthy opponents.

"Trolling" has nothing to do with sincere expression of contrary opinions or stubborn dedication to an idea. Trolling is all in how the comments are phrased and how the comment poster behaves, especially when confronted.

You know it's an immature attention-getting scheme when they respond quickly to every single comment posted in response to theirs, and their rhetoric tends to escalate in intense hatred, absurd rambling, and malicious provocation.

From his other thread.


Bubu




Bubu is offline
Philippines
Avalon Member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date:29th May 2013
Age:47
Posts:426
Thanks:946
Thanked 1,241 times in 354 posts



Please please please I'm no couch potato
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHWcm_lwkvg

PS I'm the one with the surf board

Here's the guy with the surf board, looking pretty good for a 47 year old, a perverts dream.

yHWcm_lwkvg

Woa Paula I am amazed that you come this far to label me.

“If you judge people, you have no time to love them.” Mother Theresa.

Words are deceptive really. I have learned that the worst liars are those that can spin the words with great ease. Like the Lawyers. :eek:

thanks for the post

[Akasha]

P5WzgwIiI5o

Short video questioning the demonisation of sugar.

[kenaz]

A little late getting into the debate but this video gets to the heart of how fructose, glucose and HFCS are
metabolized different in the body (mostly in the liver), who put the sugar in our food (starting with Nixon)
and how the obesity is now staring in 6 month olds!

dBnniua6-oM

[Akasha]

Kor wrote:
Calcium ions are important for the body but drinking milk actually increases the chances for osteoporosis (weak bone structure). If need be the products made from milk are still "less bad" than drinking the milk itself.

That's not the case if you are drinking raw, organic milk. Our current epidemic of osteoporosis began with pasteurization and homogenization. Most commercial dairy products like yogurt are worthless because the cultures aren't live or strong enough. Homemade kefir is a miracle food!

The reason osteoporosis soared with the advent of pasteurisation and homogenisation is because the consumption of milk then rose dramatically under the notion that it was now "safe to drink".

The fact is that milk, raw or otherwise has never been safe to drink unless you are a CALF!!!

The same goes for all of its derivatives, even those of a probiotic nature.
My partner's gran has been making probiotic kefir from raw milk for time and she's riddled with arthritis. "Miracle food"? Yeah, right.

We are the only species that drinks the mammary secretions of another species.

http://onetouchnewlife.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/a-aaa-i-love-milk.jpg

If you think you can defy nature, good luck with that.....

.....and then there's the puss!! Would you like it raw or heat treated? lol!!

Finally, the unspeakably cruel activity that is veal farming is a direct by-product of the dairy industry....."What are we gonna do with all those calves that woulda drunk our milk? I know, let's market their anaemic asses under the pretense that it's what people want.....oh yeah, but we gotta keep'em in crates to improve the flavor.".....sick f*cks!!!

If you want to remain blissfully ignorant of the reality of dairy, don't read this (http://www.notmilk.com/kradjian.html).

Sorry Babu, back to sugar.

[Akasha]

A little late getting into the debate but this video gets to the heart of how fructose, glucose and HFCS are
metabolized different in the body (mostly in the liver), who put the sugar in our food (starting with Nixon)
and how the obesity is now staring in 6 month olds!

dBnniua6-oM

Lustig is a paleo-pushing meat industry tool and he's overweight!

Actually, it's very difficult to find any of these low carb / high protein "gurus" that aren't overweight.

I've been loosely following Doug Graham's 80 10 10 diet (80% carb's, 10% protein, 10% fat - all plant based) for some time now. I'm currently on day 25 of a house renovation. I've had 2 days off and I'm putting in 12-14 hour days, hard graft, minimum and I'm tearing through it. I'd love to see Lustig keeping up whilst following his own dietary advice.

High carb's ftw, sugar included, but ideally unrefined.

[araucaria]

Woa Paula I am amazed that you come this far to label me.

“If you judge people, you have no time to love them.” Mother Theresa.

Words are deceptive really. I have learned that the worst liars are those that can spin the words with great ease. Like the Lawyers. :eek:

thanks for the post
There is a difference between labelling someone as a troll and saying “you exhibit troll-like qualities (http://pluperfecter.blogspot.com/2011/08/14-characteristics-of-classic-internet.html)”, which is merely a description of your posting style. It is an invitation to show that you are not the troll that you, doubtless unwittingly, appear to be. It happens all the time - but so does real trolling. Please do a little more to show that you are a bona fide poster.

[onawah]

Actually, many species do drink the milk of other species, in certain situations.

http://i.imgur.com/MfQ6x.jpg http://cl.jroo.me/z3/7/6/v/e/a.baa-cat-drinking-milk-straight-f.jpg
and not just cats...

For the lactose tolerant, goat, sheep, cow, and milk from other mammals has been a source of food for a very long time.
I have no illusions about the dairy industry--I was a vegetarian for many years, and years ago when I read John Robbins book Diet for a New America, I became a vegan on principle.
I've studied nutrition quite a lot and for a number of years, I was eating primarily raw and sprouted foods, which I still do that a lot.
But years of being vegan took its toll on my health, and eventually I began incorporating raw, organic dairy back into my diet, and a few years ago I stopped fighting my craving for meat and began eating a very small amount of meat--perhaps 5 lbs of local, organic, free range poultry per month.
I feel better when I am eating some dairy and meat. and though I would prefer to be vegan, it just didn't work for me.
I wouldn't call that defying Nature, it's just being practical for where I am in my evolution now.
Some body types do better with being vegan, some don't.

Just as sugar may not cause problems for some people; realistically, that doesn't mean it's OK for everyone.







Kor wrote:
Calcium ions are important for the body but drinking milk actually increases the chances for osteoporosis (weak bone structure). If need be the products made from milk are still "less bad" than drinking the milk itself.

That's not the case if you are drinking raw, organic milk. Our current epidemic of osteoporosis began with pasteurization and homogenization. Most commercial dairy products like yogurt are worthless because the cultures aren't live or strong enough. Homemade kefir is a miracle food!

The reason osteoporosis soared with the advent of pasteurisation and homogenisation is because the consumption of milk then rose dramatically under the notion that it was now "safe to drink".

The fact is that milk, raw or otherwise has never been safe to drink unless you are a CALF!!!

The same goes for all of its derivatives, even those of a probiotic nature.
My partner's gran has been making probiotic kefir from raw milk for time and she's riddled with arthritis. "Miracle food"? Yeah, right.

We are the only species that drinks the mammary secretions of another species.

http://onetouchnewlife.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/a-aaa-i-love-milk.jpg

If you think you can defy nature, good luck with that.....

.....and then there's the puss!! Would you like it raw or heat treated? lol!!

Finally, the unspeakably cruel activity that is veal farming is a direct by-product of the dairy industry....."What are we gonna do with all those calves that woulda drunk our milk? I know, let's market their anaemic asses under the pretense that it's what people want.....oh yeah, but we gotta keep'em in crates to improve the flavor.".....sick f*cks!!!

If you want to remain blissfully ignorant of the reality of dairy, don't read this (http://www.notmilk.com/kradjian.html).

Sorry Babu, back to sugar.

[onawah]

Here are a few more examples of cross-species nursing:
http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/9boxerdeerjpg
http://deathandtaxesmag.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/interspeciespandas.jpg
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/uploadedImages/krcg/News/Stories/GOAT%20NURSE%20FOAL%20CBS.jpg?w=500&h=375&aspect=nostretch

Colostrum from goats and cows is often recommended for humans with various health issues, especially immune related.

I would say that, if anything, Nature is flexible and adaptive.

Back to topic:
There's a good article from Dr. Mercola today on sweeteners and sugar substitutes:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/07/sugar-substitutes.aspx?e_cid=20131007Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20131007Z1

[Akasha]

Here are a few more examples of cross-species nursing:
http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites/default/files/images/9boxerdeerjpg
http://deathandtaxesmag.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/interspeciespandas.jpg
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/uploadedImages/krcg/News/Stories/GOAT%20NURSE%20FOAL%20CBS.jpg?w=500&h=375&aspect=nostretch

Colostrum from goats and cows is often recommended for humans with various health issues, especially immune related.

I would say that, if anything, Nature is flexible and adaptive.

Back to topic:
There's a good article from Dr. Mercola today on sweeteners and sugar substitutes:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/07/sugar-substitutes.aspx?e_cid=20131007Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20131007Z1

The examples you shared are rare freaks and in no way comparable with the level of human / bovine interaction.

If a minimum of half the kittens on the planet were weened on dog milk, I might be more receptive to your argument but as it stands, it is a logical fallacy.

[Akasha]

.....But years of being vegan took its toll on my health and a few years ago I stopped fighting my craving for meat and began eating a very small amount of meat--perhaps 5 lbs of local, organic, free range poultry per month.
I feel better when I am eating some dairy and meat.... and though I would prefer to be vegan, it just didn't work for me.
I wouldn't call that defying Nature, it's just being practical for where I am in my evolution now.
Some body types do better with being vegan, some don't.

The non-violation of another should always take priority over "cravings", or our perceived ill health as a result of abstinence from such diets.

I stopped being a cannibal but after a few years I gave in to my "cravings". I don't do well on a diet void of human flesh and feel much better now I'm back on it.

.
...flesh eating can eventually be seen as disgusting, horrifying, and a cousin to cannibalism.....

Wade Frasier, here (http://www.ahealedplanet.net/veggie.htm).

[Rich]

In the past I sometimes killed my own food but i don't think i could still do that, I am vegetarian now. Experimenting with raw food diets for 5 years I found that I was probably healthiest when i included raw meat, i even ate bugs.

I used to think similar to you Akasha, but 80% fruit is too much imo/experience when you eat fruit you are basically eating 90% sugar.

[Akasha]

In the past I sometimes killed my own food but i don't think i could still do that, I am vegetarian now. Experimenting with raw food diets for 5 years I found that I was probably healthiest when i included raw meat, i even ate bugs.

I used to think similar to you Akasha, but 80% fruit is too much imo/experience when you eat fruit you are basically eating 90% sugar.

Respect for respecting life, EmEx..... and just to be clear, my diet is not 80% fruit but 80% carb's in general. This would obviously include potatoes, rice, various grains and legumes, the latter also constituting a significant amount of my protein intake too.

[onawah]

I consider my need for a little meat to be a message from my body that it is not yet ready to be fully vegetarian at this time.
I've seen too many vegans whose health has fallen apart due to the restrictions of their chosen diet.
Compassion is a wonderful quality, but one has to have compassion for one's self as well.
I've seen a lot of judgmental self-righteous vegan fanatics over the years, have even been one myself, but I've stopped being so judgmental.
Resorting to name calling to get others to bow to my supposed superiority is not at all convincing, IMHO, quite the contrary.
Life forms are interdependent in 3D, and I don't consider it cannibalism when a carnivore kills and eats another animal, anymore than when a human does.
I certainly do think killing unnecessarily is wrong, as is causing unnecessary suffering.
I look forward both to a world where people are no longer in judgement of each other and where killing is entirely a thing of the past.
I don't think it's that far off, but it will come much sooner when we stop judging each other, and look instead to see what we can improve in ourselves.

[Akasha]

Hi Onawah and thanks for your response. I've decided to reply to your above post in the "Does Our Treatment of Animals Affect How We Treat Each Other?" thread here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62855-Does-Our-Treatment-of-Animals-Affect-How-We-Treat-Each-Other&p=742051&viewfull=1#post742051) so as not to derail Babu's thread.

Best.

[Bubu]

I have learned that the worst liars are those that can spin the words with great ease. Like the Lawyers. :eek:

thanks for the post

Ooooops..... Dumb me. why did I say that? Did not mean it. I think the cabal is the worst liars second politicians. Lawyers come six or futher. I knew it we are a family of lawyers the job requires one to lie in court. But lawyers are good people. Lawyers in our family are its just that perhaps when they studied law they do not know what lies ahead.

Apologies to the lawyers


dumbmedumbmedumbme

[Ultima Thule]

The one thing we should get rid of regarding nutrition?
Carbs? No
Meat? No
Fat? No
Cooked? No
Raw? No
Dairy? No

Preconception of oneself being the general sample of human that can be extrapolated to all mankind. People are different and even the same person can adapt his/her body to different nutrition. People thrive on carbs, meat, fat, raw, cooked, you name it. I can easily list pros and cons for all above, and still, however unpropable it is for an individual to thrive on homogenated, fat free dairy with nothing but raw carrots all year round, one must not generalize. How people thrive may be highly unlikely, but still true.
Rigid preconceptions? Yes

UT

[Akasha]

Heeeeeeeere's Harley elaborating further on the garbage that "no sugar" Lustig endorses (caution - occasional profanity content but then who's language wouldn't get a bit strong when responding to such BS):

pYz9Z8mZ4fo