4 ms·
Sugar is just an empty calorie, there's plenty of studies that also show that it has no real net negative effect. The problem is when your diet consists primari
by greywolve 10y ago
Sugar is just an empty calorie, there's plenty of studies that also show that it has no real net negative effect. The problem is when your diet consists primarily of empty calories, then obviously you are going to have health problems, from lack of nutrients. If your diet is nutrient rich, a bit of extra sugar will not do anything bad.
- EugeneOZ 10y agoat least try to google "sugar calories".
- greywolve 10y agoYou should always google the opposite view points too, and not just consider the main stream opinion on things. There are forums of people that take the opposite viewpoint, and do very well too. It's best to be open minded. We don't have everything figured out yet.
- cholantesh 10y agoThere are forums of people that take the viewpoint that the world is a disc and that the media is run by shapeshifting lizards, too. That doesn't mean they deserve to be taken seriously.
- cyphar 10y agoYou really skipped several steps between "people who think that excess sugar is bad for you" and "flat-earthers".
- cholantesh 10y ago>"people who think that excess sugar is bad for you" Parent is referring to people who think polyunsaturated fats are bad for you, though. And what I'm taking issue with is the argument that because there exist 'entire forums' of people who have accepted a claim, their views should be given credence.
- cyphar 10y agoI don't think that diabetes is caused by a lack of nutrients.
- taeric 10y agoAnd a calorie is just a proxy for energy stored. It will certainly correlate with energy related metrics. Just like kloc will correlate with code related metrics. However, if you are in position to measure other items, I'd highly suggest it.
- croon 10y agoSorry, but you are the one that tripped the final wire for me: What exactly is an "empty calorie"? What metric is it low on? It has calories. What is it empty of?
- cyphar 10y ago"Nutrients" (according to the parent). The hypothesis being that diabetes is caused by lack of nutrients. But this is clearly false because impoverished countries don't have disproportionately high amounts of diabetes. Not to mention that AFAIK the jury is out on sugar causing diabetes.
- overgard 10y agoSo, a "calorie" is just a measurement of energy produced when something is burned. Like, really, that's it. Proteins have specific uses, and some of them can't be produced by your body, so that would be an example of a "non-empty" calorie. Same thing with lipids. Carbohydrates are, essentially, sugar. (Once they're broken down). Obviously you can use them for energy, and they're useful in that regard, but once you have "enough" carbohydrates to fuel whatever activity you're doing adding more just causes your body to convert them into fat. So, that's why they're considered "emtpy" -- they have no nutritional value other than being converted to glucose.
- croon 10y agoYour answer is informative, so I can't fault you for that, but I already know this. I asked because "empty calories" is (almost) always uttered in the same breath as either 1) no real information or 2) comparing to other carbohydrates. I do however take issue with this: > but once you have "enough" carbohydrates to fuel whatever activity you're doing adding more just causes your body to convert them into fat. So, that's why they're considered "emtpy" That's true with any calorie. By that definition any calorie you're not using is empty.
- overgard 10y agoWell sure, eating too much of any nutrient is not great. Think of it this way, if you just ate a bag of sugar everyday you'd have energy but be malnourished. Hence why theyre empty.