4 ms·
> You are taking his definition of "empty" quite literally while in the article, his definition of "empty" clearly states: > sugars cause dental caries and are
by natecavanaugh 9y ago
> You are taking his definition of "empty" quite literally while in the article, his definition of "empty" clearly states:
> sugars cause dental caries and are a source of excess calories, “empty” of vitamins, minerals, protein, and fibre
Yeah, that also stretches the definition quite a bit, and it's like saying "protein is empty of vitamins, minerals, fat and carbohydrates".
None of the macros contain vitamins or minerals or fiber, so what exactly are empty calories?
> Interested to hear why you "think that sugar has a special place in our body". Is this from empirical or anecdotal evidence?
I think all of the macros interact with the body in different ways, but sugar is interesting to me because of how much of it is used for brain processing, and how it's also leveraged to trigger insulin to store the macros.
Related to brain function, though, is that depriving yourself of sugar (or complex carbs) can regulate seizures in epileptic patients.
So, IMHO, the article somehow tries to differentiate between complex and simple carbs, but if that were the case, why would complex carbs somehow still factor into epilepsy?
I think we have a very very basic understanding of how the different macros all interact with our bodies, especially sugar.
- grogers 9y agoIt's not so much the difference between simple and complex carbohydrates, but between glucose and fructose. Glucose is energy for your body, so important you will manufacture it even on a zero carbohydrate diet. Fructose serves no real purpose in the body and is processed entirely by the liver (primarily into fat - excessive consumption leading to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease). "Sugar" is often used for any simple carbohydrate but it's really fructose containing compounds like sucrose this piece is primarily warning about. Fructose seems to have a much bigger impact on insulin resistance leading to obesity, type 2 diabetes, etc.
- natecavanaugh 9y agoI've read that fructose is stored primarily by the liver, but again, this just gets a bit more confusing it I'm to follow the logic of the article. They mention the problem with sucrose (and HFCS), but sucrose is 50/50 glucose and fructose and HFCS is 45/55 glucose/fructose. If fructose is the sugar with a real impact on diabetes and insulin resistance, why are diabetics given glucose tablets to raise low blood sugar? Maybe I'm the one who is confused, but if fructose were the main evil component, I'd imagine there would be a lot of fruitarians with diabetes (though I have anecdotally seen a lot that run into pancreatic problems, but rarely obesity or diabetes).