Sugar is good. The sugar conspiracy scam hoax

[Strat]

Posted by Ba-ba-Ra (here)
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]

Posted by Watching from Cyprus (here)
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/nutrit...54-calcium.htm

[Bubu]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by Bubu (here)

Posted by araucaria (here)
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]

Posted by Bubu (here)

Posted by araucaria (here)
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

use HONEY instead of sugar !

[araucaria]

Posted by Bubu (here)

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by Bubu (here)

Posted by araucaria (here)
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]

Posted by araucaria (here)
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”:

(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

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/2012/0...l#slide=818307
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/heart/...chocolate.aspx
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diet-and-...late-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]

Posted by Paula (here)
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”:

(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

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
https://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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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]

Posted by Bobd (here)
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]

Posted by araucaria (here)
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]

Posted by The Truth Is In There (here)
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/ar...etabolism.aspx

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

Extract from the Mercola article (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:

1. Your body metabolizes fructose in a much different way from glucose. The entire burden of metabolizing fructose falls on your liver.
2. 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, 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 quoted in my above post:

[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!